put-workflows-by-workflow-id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update workflow' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise with just two words, 'Update workflow', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but as per scoring rules, it earns full points for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.

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 as a mutation operation with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details about behavior, parameters, and usage context, making it insufficient for effective tool invocation.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'workflowId', 'name', or 'description' represent, their formats, or constraints, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 workflow' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('workflow'), but it's vague about what specific aspects are updated. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'put-asset-by-asset-id' or 'put-models-by-model-id' beyond the resource type, lacking specificity about workflow-specific operations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing workflow ID, or differentiate it from related tools like 'post-workflows' (create) or 'delete-workflows-by-workflow-id' (delete), leaving usage context unclear.

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