set_workflow_slot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-destructive default (stdout=True returns modified workflow rather than writing in place), the destructive alternative (stdout=False writes back), the type-preservation behavior, and the coercion behavior of the string form. This is rich behavioral context beyond what the schema provides.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a wrapper note, a bulleted list for the two override forms, and a final behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place; the formatting makes the two forms and their trade-offs scannable.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, the two input forms, the type semantics, the destructive/non-destructive behavior, and the relationship to sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of overrides (both structured and string forms), the address format (feed list_workflow_slots' address in), the value type semantics, and the stdout parameter's effect. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema field names.

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 states a specific verb ('Set'), a specific resource ('slot values on a frontend-format workflow'), and the underlying CLI wrapper. It also names the parameterize step of the template on-ramp and contrasts with hand-editing JSON, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workflow_slots and run_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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (the parameterize step of the template on-ramp: change prompt/seed/steps/model without hand-editing JSON) and gives concrete guidance on the two override forms, including when to prefer structured vs string. It also explains the stdout=True vs False behavior, which is a key usage decision.

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