nexo_workflow_update

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'replayable checkpoints' but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., mutability), required permissions, or whether the update is atomic. The description is insufficient for understanding behavioral implications.

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 that efficiently states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could be restructured to also highlight key details.

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 18 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It provides only a high-level overview, missing crucial details like parameter meanings, input validation rules, and return 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage; 18 parameters exist but the description adds no information about them. The description only lists abstract concepts ('replayable checkpoints, step status') without linking to actual parameters.

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's action ('Update a workflow run') and specifies the scope ('with replayable checkpoints, step status, retry metadata, and shared state'). This provides a specific verb and resource, though it could further differentiate from sibling update-like tools such as nexo_workflow_resume.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nexo_workflow_handoff or nexo_workflow_compensation. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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