update_workflow_general

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

The description indicates mutation ('update') but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or behavioral nuances (e.g., whether other fields are reset). With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal insight beyond the operation.

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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. It could be slightly more structured but wastes no words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters (one required), the description is too sparse. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, and dependencies, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions three of four parameters (name, description, clean) but omits the required workflowId. It does not explain what 'clean' means or any constraints. Partial but insufficient.

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 clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'workflow' with the qualifier 'general' fields, listing specific examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_workflow_actions which update more specific fields.

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 tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_workflow_actions, update_workflow_start_conditions). The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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