update_draft

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

Annotations already establish this is a write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those markers: steps are replaced wholesale, approval gates are tracked, and the result lists steps still needing approval while confirm_draft will refuse until none remain. It also discloses the return value. It doesn't mention potential errors or side effects in depth, but the added lifecycle and validation context earns a solid 4.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, then usage context, then step format, then behavioral detail. Every sentence adds necessary information for correct invocation, with no filler or redundancy. It is slightly longer than minimal but the additional context is all operational, so it earns a 4.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is thorough: it covers when to call, when not to call, the step data structure, approval validation behavior, and the return format. It doesn't explain default parameter behavior or error cases, but the schema already covers parameter descriptions and the draft lifecycle constraint is fully addressed. Overall, an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the exact step dict shape ({action, skill, tool, params, rollback_tool?, rollback_params?}) and the special action value 'require_approval' for approval gates. It also explains the consequence of omitting approval gates during design, clarifying semantics of the steps parameter beyond the schema's 'replaces all existing steps.'

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 opens with 'Update a DRAFT workflow's name, description, or steps,' which names a specific action, resource, and the fields it affects. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly restricting usage to the DRAFT state and pointing to create_workflow for post-confirmation workflows, so an agent can clearly tell it apart without opening schemas.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this after design_workflow() to fill in the actual steps, or to modify steps based on user feedback.' It also states a hard when-not-to-use rule: after confirm_draft the steps are frozen and one must create_workflow a new one instead. This covers both the appropriate trigger and the exclusion condition, leaving no ambiguity.

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