update_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It doesn't disclose that this is a mutation operation, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data), authentication needs, error conditions, or what the response looks like. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place, but the tool may be under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't compensate for missing structured data, failing to explain behavior, parameters, or outcomes. This is inadequate for safe and effective use.

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%, and the description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'workflow_id', 'name', or 'stages' represent, their formats, constraints, or how they interact. With 3 parameters (1 required) and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap that hinders correct invocation.

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 a workflow' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('workflow') but doesn't specify what aspects can be updated (e.g., name, stages) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_workflow' or 'delete_workflow'. This provides minimal guidance beyond the obvious.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workflow), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'create_workflow' for initial setup or 'fetch_workflows' for viewing. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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