update_workflow_step

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, whether it modifies only provided fields, permission requirements, or any consequences. This is no more informative than the tool name itself.

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 brief, but conciseness is not the issue; it is under-specified. A single sentence is fine, but it omits essential information, making it more of a bare summary than a useful definition.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain the update behavior, fields, and side effects. It does none of that, so the tool definition is incomplete for a tool with four parameters.

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 only 25% (only 'id' is documented), and the description adds no parameter details. Parameter names like name, position, and preserve_subfolders are left entirely unexplained, so the agent cannot determine valid values or effects.

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 step.' clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (workflow step). It distinguishes from siblings like create_workflow_step or approve_workflow_step, but does not elaborate on scope or specific fields, so it lacks the specificity to fully differentiate from other update operations such as update_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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_workflow_step, delete_workflow_step, or approve_workflow_step. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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