yaaif_ambient_workflow_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'update' and mentions graph/metadata and agent assignment. It does not reveal whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether fields are reset, whether concurrency protection (like expected_updated_at) matters, if any destructive side effects occur, or what the caller needs to know before invoking.

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 clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately compact, though it sacrifices informative detail; still, conciseness itself is strong.

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 complex mutation tool with 11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far from complete. It identifies the resource and a couple of update categories but omits semantics for most parameters, update behavior, preconditions, and return values, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the property names. It only hints that workflow_graph and ambient_agent_id are relevant; it does not clarify policy, trigger_rules, requires_approval, expected_updated_at, workflow_async_enabled, or the rest, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') plus a clear resource ('an ambient workflow graph / metadata') and highlights the particularly relevant 'ambient agent assignment' behavior. It is distinguishable from create/get/list siblings by the verb and resource, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling.

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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like yaaif_ambient_workflow_create or yaaif_ambient_workflow_get. The description only states what the tool does; it does not explain when an update is appropriate, whether the workflow must already exist, or when create/list should be preferred.

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