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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers non-obvious behavior: the whole flow is rebuilt and its status resets to DRAFT, requiring a manual republish. It omits auth/permission requirements and any reversal behavior, but the rebuild-and-reset side effect is the key thing an agent needs to know before invoking a mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with cost and the core action, then examples, then the behavioral consequence. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 2-parameter, fully-schema-documented tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknown — the draft-reset side effect and republish requirement. It could state what the call returns (e.g., flow id/status), but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (flow id/name, plain-words change) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that `change` is free-form text via examples but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (change) and resource (one of the person's Flows) with concrete examples of the kind of natural-language edit accepted. It is clearly distinguishable from create_flow, run_flow, and make_edit without opening any sibling schema.

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?

"Free." immediately signals this costs nothing, and the DRAFT/republish note tells the agent the operation is a meta-edit requiring a follow-up publish in the studio. It gives clear context but never explicitly names when to prefer it over siblings like make_edit or create_flow.

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