Update Subtask

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only, so the description's main addition is the dry_run=true default, which tempers the destructive expectation by indicating that real execution requires explicitly setting dry_run=false. This is valuable safety-relevant behavior beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences: the first leads with the core purpose, and the second gives a prerequisite and safety default. No filler, every clause contributes. Excellent front-loading.

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 the tool's complexity (11 params, four actions, no output schema), the description provides the most critical context: the prerequisite workflow_get_node call and the dry_run safety default. It doesn't explain action-specific requirements like task_id for confirm/rollback, but the schema covers those. A bit more guidance on action semantics would elevate it, but it's sufficient for an agent with schema visibility.

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 covers all 11 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's only param-related note is about node_id ('Use workflow_get_node first when node_id...unknown'), which adds a usage hint but not new semantics beyond the schema's 'Template node ID that owns the subtask.' Thus minimal added value.

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 operates on subtasks with four specific actions (create/update/confirm/rollback), distinguishing it from sibling tools like workitem_update which target work items. The resource and verbs are explicit, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 explicitly directs calling workflow_get_node first when node_id or existing subtask context is unknown, providing a concrete when-to-use prerequisite. It also notes the dry_run default, implying a safe way to explore the tool without side effects. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool vs other tools like workitem_update.

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