update_workflow

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It states full replacement but does not mention idempotency, error conditions, permissions needed, or side effects on existing state. For a mutation tool, this is insufficiently transparent.

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?

Two paragraphs: first states main purpose and replacement behavior, second details SKU specifics. Front-loaded, no redundant sentences. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for SKU differences), but effective and concise.

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?

No output schema; description does not mention return value or confirmation of update. Given complexity (7 params, nested objects, SKU variations), missing information about what the tool returns and how to verify success reduces completeness.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds value by clarifying the role of workflowName in Standard SKU, kind defaults, and providing a concrete example for connections. This goes beyond schema descriptions and helps agent usage.

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?

Clearly states the tool updates an existing workflow's definition by replacing the entire definition. It specifies the verb 'update', the resource 'workflow definition', and distinguishes from create or get operations. SKU-specific details further clarify scope.

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 explicit workflow: use get_workflow_definition first, modify, then update. Recommends get_connector_swagger for connector actions. Notes SKU-specific requirements (workflowName for Standard, connections for Consumption). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is strong.

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