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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds real value beyond them: the created object is a non-public draft, its visibility flips only at publish_flow, and the response carries validation output. It doesn't mention auth/permission requirements, but the draft-state semantics are exactly the kind of context annotations can't convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the two input modes, then the lifecycle constraint, then the return signal. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 an output schema exists, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and it still flags the validation payload. For a 6-parameter create tool with full annotation and schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds the either/or semantics between template_key and spec that the schema only gestures at ('Either template_key or spec'), and the schema's spec description is unusually detailed. Marginal added value above the structured fields.

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 ('Create a draft Zuno flow') and names the two mutually exclusive creation modes (template_key vs spec). The mention of publish_flow and the validation in the response clearly separates it from sibling tools like update_flow, publish_flow, and validate_flow.

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?

Explains the lifecycle context — the draft is invisible to attendees until publish_flow — which tells an agent this is step one in a create/publish workflow, and the schema nudges toward validate_flow before submitting a spec. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with update_flow or stating prerequisites like event ownership.

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