Update a Wiro workflow

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial context the annotations cannot convey: default call saves nothing and only reports a diff, step replacement is irreversible, a 40 KB limit applies (even to shrink large saved workflows), and editing a published workflow drops it from the gallery pending review. It also discloses the optimistic-concurrency contract and the hidden-value restoration behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, and nearly every sentence carries distinct operational information (concurrency, dry-run, size cap, gallery reset). It is nonetheless a single ~190-word block with the confirmation and size-limit rules compressed together, where bullets would make the decision points easier to scan.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with a nested `contents` object and 9 parameters, the description covers what can be lost, what gating flags are required, size constraints and how to recover from a rejected graph. The output schema exists, so the brief mention of what the dry-run returns is sufficient rather than redundant.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema carries parameter documentation and the baseline is 3. The description still earns credit by adding meaning beyond it: loaded_updatetime is framed as an overwrite guard tied to get_workflow, confirm is tied to a concrete approve-then-repeat loop, and omitting metadata.input.values is explained as preserving saved inputs. Marginal duplication of some schema text keeps it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (Change) and resource (a workflow you own or your team owns) plus the exact editable surface: title, description, tags and/or its whole step graph. This cleanly separates it from create_workflow (needs validation, no existing slug), get_workflow (read-first prerequisite) and delete_workflow.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ("Read it with get_workflow first"), the approval loop (call without confirm, show summary, repeat with confirm: true), conditional gates for acknowledge_review_reset and force, and a security rule (never save keys/passwords). An agent knows both when and how to proceed without inference.

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