Update Workflow Form Field Condition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that — it never says whether unspecified attributes are preserved or cleared, what happens on an invalid id, or that the `data.id` field is ignored in favor of the path id (that lives only in the schema).

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized but so terse that it conveys almost nothing beyond the tool name.

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?

A mutation tool with a large nested payload, no output-schema explanation needed, but nothing on update semantics, required attribute combinations, or failure modes. Given the complexity of the attributes object, the description is not sufficient to call this correctly without careful schema reading.

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 coverage is 50% and the payload is a nested `data.attributes` object with ten different `selected_*_ids`/`values` arrays. The description says only 'by id' and explains nothing about which attribute arrays apply to which condition kinds, leaving the most error-prone part of the call undocumented outside the schema's per-property blurbs.

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?

States a specific verb (update), a specific resource (workflow form field condition), and the keying mechanism (by id). The resource name itself distinguishes it from get_/list_/create_workflow_form_field_condition siblings, though the description text makes no explicit comparison.

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 versus create_ or get_workflow_form_field_condition, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. an existing condition id from list_workflow_form_field_conditions), and no note about partial vs full replacement semantics.

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