update_draft

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: that steps are replaced as a whole ('replaces all existing steps'), that it's only valid pre-confirmation, and the [WRITE] flag. This adds context to the annotations' readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, clarifying the actual mutation scope without contradiction.

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 well-structured with usage guidance, step format, Args, and Returns. Every sentence adds value—no fluff, yet it covers all necessary details without excessive length.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the return value ('Updated workflow summary for user review'') and explains the workflow lifecycle context. Combined with sibling references and precise parameters, it is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema provides only names/types with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's purpose, optionality, and the step dict structure, including approved actions. This is essential for correct invocation.

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 tool 'Update a DRAFT workflow's name, description, or steps' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing the DRAFT state and pointing to create_workflow for after confirmation.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('after design_workflow() to fill in the actual steps, or to modify steps based on user feedback') and when not to ('only while the workflow is still DRAFT — after confirm_draft... create_workflow a new one instead'), with an alternative named.

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