update_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the key behavioral nuance: structural edits on committed-only families return 409. It doesn't detail further (e.g., whether changes are reversible), but for this tool, the main constraint is covered. A 4 is justified for adding the crucial 409 behavior.

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?

Two sentences, directly stating purpose and critical usage caveat. No fluff, every word adds value. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behavioral constraint (409 on structural edits) and the workflow draft prerequisite. It could mention potential errors or the distinction between draft and committed families more, but for a complex tool with 8 params, it is reasonably complete. A 4 fits.

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 100% coverage, with each parameter well-described (e.g., workflow_id indicates it's a family id, schedule_cron explains use of null). The description adds context on the structural vs metadata distinction, but does not go into per-parameter specifics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool updates a workflow draft, with specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself by contrasting structural vs metadata-only edits, which separates it from related tools like commit_workflow or create_workflow_draft.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (update a workflow draft) and when not to: structural edits require calling create_workflow_draft first when the family is committed-only. It also gives an alternative for metadata-only edits (may update committed family directly). This is excellent guidance.

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