set_workflow_description

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states it updates the catalog and describes the return value. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects beyond updating the description field. This is a mutation tool, so more detail would be valuable.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, rationale, Args, Returns, and Example. Every section earns its place, and the front-loaded purpose sentence immediately clarifies the tool's function. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple: two string parameters, no nested objects, and no complex side effects. The description covers the purpose, both parameters, the return format, and an example. Given the low complexity and the presence of an output schema reference, this description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Even though the input schema only provides types and titles, the description's Args section adds meaningful semantics: 'RID of the workflow to update' and 'New description text.' It also provides a concrete example with values, giving the agent full understanding of both parameters beyond the schema alone.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Set or update the description for a workflow.' It identifies the resource ('workflow') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it updates the workflow's description in the catalog, differentiating from set_dataset_description, set_table_description, etc.

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?

The description provides clear context: use this when setting/updating a workflow's description. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the workflow-specific scope and catalog mention make the intended usage unambiguous. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so it misses the top score.

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