Update Workflow Group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the nested `attributes` object is a partial merge or a full replace, what happens to omitted fields, or what the response returns. For a mutation with a nested payload, partial-update semantics are the critical missing piece.

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 sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than front-loaded with useful content; the space saved is not redeployed to explain the mutation's behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the mutation profile. However, for a nested-object update tool the description omits partial-update semantics, required payload shape, and any sibling routing — the gaps an agent would actually trip on.

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 description says only 'by id' and never mentions the required `data`/`attributes` envelope. With schema description coverage at 50%, the description should compensate for the undocumented half, but it provides no detail on updatable fields (name, icon, kind, description, position, expanded) or the ignored/deprecated fields.

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) and resource (workflow group) scoped by id, which lets an agent immediately grasp the operation. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as update_workflow or update_workflow_task, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_workflow, create_workflow_group, or get_workflow_group. The only hint is 'specific ... by id', which implies the resource must already exist but is never stated explicitly.

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