Edit workflow

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds crucial behavioral details: edits are applied as a new draft version, a stale base_version is rejected instead of overwriting concurrent work, and editing does not activate the draft. These disclosures help the agent understand side effects and concurrency semantics, exceeding what annotations alone provide.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, and includes only essential usage and behavioral caveats. No redundant wording or filler; each clause adds necessary information.

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 moderately complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary behaviors: batch edits, new draft version, compare-and-swap, prerequisite read, concurrency protection, and non-activation. It does not mention the return shape (e.g., new version number) but that is a minor omission given the tool's function and available annotations.

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 all three parameters are already well-documented. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, only implicitly referencing base_version compare-and-swap (already in schema) and listing supported ops (already in the enum). It does not compensate for any schema gaps because there are none.

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 tool applies a batch of constrained edits as a new draft version using compare-and-swap. It specifies the supported operation types (set_params, add_step, remove_step, add_router) and contrasts with sibling tools like create_workflow and run_workflow by emphasizing the batch edit and draft version behavior.

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 instructs reading the current workflow version with get_workflow_version first and warns that a stale base_version is rejected, providing clear context for correct usage. It does not name alternative tools for cases like creating a new workflow, but the prerequisite and the 'does not activate the draft' note offer strong usage guidance.

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