update_workflow

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

The description implies a mutation (update) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as field semantics, idempotency, permissions, or effects on dependent resources. With no annotations to lean on, this lack of disclosure is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise to the point of being under-specifying. While brevity is good, this one-sentence description fails to provide the minimum information needed for correct tool usage, so it cannot be considered well-structured.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides no context about what updating a workflow entails, return values, or constraints. This is completely inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 only 25% (only id has a description). The tool description does not mention any of the updatable fields (name, enabled, description) or their meanings. The description adds no value beyond the schema, which is already sparse.

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 'Update a workflow.' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name 'update_workflow'. It communicates the basic action but adds no specificity about the resource type, fields, or distinguishing characteristics from related tools like create_workflow or delete_workflow. This is tautological rather than genuinely clarifying.

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?

No guidance provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. With sibling tools like create_workflow, list_workflows, and update_workflow_step, the agent receives no context for choosing this tool.

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