Update a workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the mutation/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP verb and the set of updatable fields, but never clarifies whether this is a partial or full replacement (i.e., whether omitted fields are preserved or reset) — a critical ambiguity for an update endpoint.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and is reasonably compact. Minor waste in the repeated title line and the generic deprecation sentence.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description names the mutable surface but omits partial-vs-full update semantics, permission requirements, and what the response returns. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 baseline is 3. The description loosely maps to fields ('name, description, trigger type, filters and actions order') but adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update the information of a specific workflow by its ID') and enumerates the mutable fields (name, description, trigger type, filters, actions order). It is clearly distinguishable from create/delete/get workflow siblings by the verb, though it does not call them out explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus immich_create_workflow or immich_get_workflow, nor prerequisites (ownership/admin rights). The only usage steer is 'DEPRECATED — prefer the replacement operation if one exists,' which names no alternative and is effectively boilerplate.

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