n8n_update_workflow

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that structure changes require deactivation first, and it mentions the return value ('Returns updated workflow'). Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, idempotent, and open-world, so the description complements this with operational constraints and output information without contradiction.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, lists key updatable elements, states a critical prerequisite, and ends with the return value. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and 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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested objects) and rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), the description is mostly complete. It adds important behavioral details like deactivation requirements and return values. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more specifics on the updated workflow format, though the annotations help mitigate this gap.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (id, name, nodes, connections) thoroughly. The description does not add additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides, such as format specifics for nodes or connections, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 specific action ('Modify existing workflow structure or settings') and resource ('workflow'), with explicit examples of what can be updated (name, nodes, connections). It distinguishes from siblings like n8n_create_workflow (creation) and n8n_delete_workflow (deletion) by focusing on modification of existing workflows.

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 clear context for usage by stating 'Workflow must be deactivated first for structure changes,' which is a prerequisite condition. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like n8n_update_workflow_tags (for tag updates only) or n8n_get_workflow (for retrieval), leaving some sibling differentiation implicit rather than explicit.

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