aap_update_workflow_template

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the PATCH method and return format, but these are largely redundant given the output schema. It does not disclose error behavior, permission requirements, or side effects.

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?

At two short lines, it is efficient and follows a standard Args/Returns structure, but the extreme brevity borders on under-specification.

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?

While the output schema covers return values, the description fails to explain parameter semantics or provide usage context for a tool that has five parameters, making it incomplete for reliable agent invocation.

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 0%, and the description merely says 'Fields to update' without elaborating on any of the five properties. This provides no semantic value beyond the schema names and types.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with resource 'AAP workflow template' and specifies the HTTP method PATCH, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like aap_create_workflow_template or aap_delete_workflow_template.

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 description states 'existing' implying the template must already exist, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention that this differs from aap_update_job_template or when to prefer this over create/delete.

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