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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description goes well beyond: it discloses the initial state (unpublished, one trigger, one reply), that nothing reaches anyone until flows_publish is called, that the operation is safe, and that a paid-plan gate can refuse the call with a customer-facing reason string. That is exactly the side-effect and failure context an agent needs.

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 the core action and resource, then the safety/state facts, then the plan gate, then the boundary against flows_set_steps. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the resulting state of the created resource, the safety profile, and the error/refusal path, which is everything needed to call it correctly. Nothing material is missing for a single required-parameter create tool.

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 100% and every parameter already has a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema (it only alludes to templates indirectly), so it does not earn above 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 and resource ("Creates a DM flow") and then defines what a DM flow actually is — a branching script that answers a DM step by step with questions and buttons. It also distinguishes itself from flows_publish and flows_set_steps by naming the publishing step and the canvas as the place steps are built.

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?

Explicitly says when this is safe ("creating one is always safe" because the flow starts unpublished), what to do instead of building steps here ("done by the customer on the flow canvas, not through this tool"), and what to do on refusal (repeat the reason as written). Alternatives and conditions are all named.

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