Update Workflow

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation. The description adds a small behavioral hint by saying 'fields', which implies a partial update, but does not disclose details like whether it performs a merge or full replacement, or what happens if the workflow does not exist. This does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It adds useful qualifiers ('fields', 'existing') beyond the title. It is not under-specified to the point of being a tautology, though it is minimal.

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 is a moderately complex update operation with four fully documented parameters and helpful annotations. The description is adequate for basic use, but lacks guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives and does not clearly indicate whether the update is partial or full. Since the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, the description is acceptable but not rich enough for a higher score.

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 100%, as each parameter (api_key, flow_id, flow_data, flow_name) has a clear description in the input schema. The description itself does not mention parameters, but the schema carries the full burden. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description adds nothing extra.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update fields on an existing workflow.' It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('workflow'), and the qualifier 'existing' distinguishes it from create or delete operations. This is distinct from sibling tools like create_workflow or delete_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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for modifying an existing workflow, nor does it reference related tools like create_workflow or delete_workflow. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name.

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