Patch workflow

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

The description adds the behavioral detail that merging is recursive, which is not visible from the schema or annotations. However, it does not explain expectedVersion conflict handling, side effects, or return behavior. Since all annotations are false, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action verb and specifies the operation. No redundant or filler words are present.

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?

With no output schema and all annotations providing no safety hints, the description fails to cover important context such as the return value, behavior when expectedVersion mismatches, or the exact patch semantics. For a mutation tool with a nested parameter, this is insufficient.

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 33%, with jobId described as 'The job ID'. The description does not explain expectedVersion or the structure of the patch object, nor does it compensate for the missing schema descriptions. The verb 'merging a patch' hints that patch is an update object but lacks detail.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'new workflow version' and the method 'recursively merging a patch'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like draft_workflow or approve_workflow, which focus on different workflow operations.

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?

Usage context is implied: you use this tool to patch a workflow version. However, it fails to mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names and general semantics.

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