nexo_workflow_update

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'update' but does not mention whether the operation is destructive, requires specific run state, or has side effects. The term 'replayable checkpoint' hints at replayability but lacks detail on what changes are made.

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, but for a tool with 18 parameters and no annotation support, it is under-specified. Concision should not sacrifice completeness; here, important details are missing, making it insufficient.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 18 undocumented parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide enough information for correct tool invocation or understanding behavior.

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, but it lists none of the 18 parameters. Parameters like 'state_patch', 'step_key', and 'run_status' are not explained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate them.

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 action ('update') and the resource ('workflow run'), adding 'replayable checkpoint' which provides specific context. It distinguishes from siblings like nexo_workflow_get or nexo_workflow_replay by indicating a mutation with checkpointing, though differentiation is implicit.

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 such as nexo_workflow_replay or nexo_workflow_resume. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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