update_workflow_action

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful context: admin-only access and that version must be the current workflow version (concurrency constraint). It stops short of describing partial-update semantics or failure behavior on version mismatch.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the action+scope is front-loaded and the version caveat follows. Efficient for the amount of information conveyed, though the version note could be folded more clearly.

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 10-parameter mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the primary mutable fields but omits `functions` entirely and gives no structure for `screen`, `conditions`, or the array item shapes. Adequate on purpose, thin on the complex nested inputs.

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 60%, so the schema already documents name, target, version, actionId and statusKey. The description adds marginal meaning by grouping name/target status/screen/conditions as the mutable fields, but offers no syntax for the nested screen object or the conditions/functions arrays.

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 and resource: 'Update one transition action of a workflow step', and lists the scope of fields (name, target status, screen, conditions). This clearly separates it from the sibling update_workflow (which mutates the whole workflow) without naming that sibling explicitly.

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 '(admin)' tag implies a permission precondition, and 'Version is the current workflow version' hints at an optimistic-concurrency requirement. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. sibling guidance and no statement of what happens on a stale version.

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