cabinet_amend_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It identifies this as a mutation and explains retire semantics, but omits permissions, whether amendments are reversible, what happens to a wf_id that doesn't exist, and what the amend operation actually changes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one non-obvious flag behavior. 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema coverage, the description leaves most of the calling contract undocumented.

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 0% across 5 parameters. The description only explains retire; wf_id, move, trigger, and reason get no semantic detail, so an agent must guess whether move is a new heuristic text or a sequencing field.

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 pair (amends/retires) and a specific resource (workflow heuristic in The Cabinet). This distinguishes it from cabinet_record_workflow and cabinet_list_workflows implicitly, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Gives a clear condition for the retire path ("when superseded or no longer firing"), but says nothing about when to amend versus create a new workflow, and does not name an alternative tool.

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