update_workflow

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

The description indicates an overwrite behavior but does not elaborate on what exactly is replaced (e.g., full vs partial update), nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or error conditions. With no annotations provided, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 very short and front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of omitting essential parameter details. It is concise but not optimally informative.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has two required parameters with no description, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide. The description is incomplete for a tool with these attributes.

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%, and the description does not explain the purpose or constraints of the 'name' and 'content' parameters. This forces agents to rely solely on the schema names, which are insufficient for correct usage.

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 action ('Update (overwrite)') and the resource ('existing user workflow'), and explicitly distinguishes from bundled workflows, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 notes that bundled workflows cannot be updated, providing a negative condition, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_workflow or get_workflow. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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