Update workflow

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot: enabling a workflow makes it live, matching contacts enter it, and steps that send mail will send — a real side effect an agent must weigh. It does not mention permission requirements, but the annotation bar is already met.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Five short bold-labelled lines, front-loaded with purpose and exclusions, and every sentence carries distinct information (scope, exclusion, return, usage, side effect). No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers intent, exclusions, the refresh of the updated workflow, and the live-enablement side effect. The remaining gap is the nested triggerConfig and allowReentry semantics, which neither the schema nor the description address.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 14% (just triggerType), so the description must carry more of the load. It names three updatable fields (name, trigger, enabled) beyond the schema, but leaves description, allowReentry and the nested triggerConfig object entirely unexplained — the riskiest parameter in the set.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource plus the exact field scope: 'Change a workflow's name, trigger or enabled state.' It explicitly excludes what it is not ('Changing what the workflow does') and names the sibling that handles that instead, so an agent can separate it from plunk_update_workflow_step without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides an explicit 'Not for' clause routing to plunk_update_workflow_step and the transition tools, and a 'Use when' clause naming the two motivating scenarios (toggling an automation, changing its trigger). When/when-not/alternative are all present.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.