update_draft

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

Annotations indicate a write operation and non-destructiveness; the description adds that steps are entirely replaced and that name updates workflow_type. It also discloses return value. This goes beyond annotations, though it could mention side effects like step count changes.

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 appropriately sized for an update tool with structured parameters. It front-loads the purpose and usage, then provides parameter details. Minor improvement: could be slightly more compact by removing redundant phrasing.

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 no output schema, it describes the return value as 'updated workflow summary for user review.' It also distinguishes between required and optional fields. The description covers the tool's role in the workflow lifecycle. Missing info on permission or error states, but overall sufficient.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes a detailed 'Args:' section explaining each parameter, including the steps dict structure with required keys. This adds significant meaning not present in the input schema.

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 explicitly states 'Update a DRAFT workflow's name, description, or steps.' It uses a clear verb and specific resource, distinguishing from siblings like design_workflow (creation) and confirm_draft (finalization).

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this after design_workflow() to fill in the actual steps, or to modify steps based on user feedback.' It implies when to use and alternatives, though could more explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., when the workflow is no longer a draft).

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