update_workflow

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

No annotations provided, and the description only states it 'Update's, implying mutation. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or any other behavioral traits. The mention of 'enabled status' is misleading as it is not a parameter.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It could be improved but is not overly verbose. However, the missing parameter aspect reduces clarity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, success indications, or required permissions for this mutation tool.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description partially compensates by listing 'name, definition, or enabled status'. However, 'enabled status' is not in the schema, and 'definition' (an object) is not explained. This adds value but introduces inaccuracy.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('workflow'), and lists specific fields. It distinguishes from siblings like create_workflow and delete_workflow. However, it mentions 'enabled status' which is not present in the input schema, causing slight inaccuracy.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_workflow or update_project. No prerequisites, conditions, or examples are provided.

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