update_workflow

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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds real value: edition/license/permission gating, 404-on-Community caveat, and the 'JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings' constraint. These are behavioral traits not in the annotations. It stops short of describing what specifically gets overwritten on update.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the operation name, then the caveats and endpoint. No wasted text, though the fragments could be tightened into clearer sentences.

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 destructive update with no output schema and a large nested input at 0% coverage, the description covers the availability gotcha and the body-string quirk but omits the shape of the nested nodes/edges an agent must construct. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0% across a deeply nested WorkflowTemplate body, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that fields go in the body and flags a non-obvious JSON-string quirk, which is genuinely useful, but it leaves the node/edge/task_params structure undocumented.

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 clear verb+resource ('update_workflow') and reinforces it with the underlying PUT endpoint. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like delete_workflow, create_workflow, or run_workflow, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It notes availability depends on edition, license, and permissions, and warns that some Community routes return 404 or empty lists—useful availability context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to update vs. create/run a workflow or which alternative to pick.

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