update-workflow-details

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses the mutation nature ('Update') and the partial update policy. However, it does not mention error cases or constraints beyond the schema. Still, it covers essential behavioral info.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No unnecessary information.

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 simple update tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, resources, and update behavior. No missing context given the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including the optionality and update behavior. The description's phrase 'Only provided fields will be updated' adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Update' and the resources 'workflow name and/or description'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get-workflow and publish-workflow, which have different purposes. No ambiguity.

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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (to update workflow name/description) and explains partial update behavior. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but given no similar update tools among siblings, this is sufficient.

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