Update Workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state that this is a full replacement of the workflow definition, not a partial patch. It also names the required structural fields. It does not disclose side effects such as overwriting prior settings, impact on running executions, or permission requirements.

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 concise sentences deliver the main action first and then the critical payload constraint. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 description covers the essential invocation details and the output schema handles return values. What is missing is explicit sibling routing and fuller disclosure of what replacing a workflow entails at runtime, which matters more because no annotations are present.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It usefully clarifies that the `workflow` object must contain name, nodes, connections, and settings. `workflow_id` is not elaborated, but its meaning is reasonably clear from 'existing workflow'.

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 'Replace' with the resource 'existing workflow's definition', so the core action is unmistakable. It also lists the required fields for the replacement workflow, which adds precision. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the 'existing' wording distinguishes it from create_workflow.

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 phrase 'existing workflow's definition' implies this tool is for modifying an already-created workflow rather than creating a new one. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over create_workflow, get_workflow, or other siblings, and no exclusions are given.

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