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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety/mutation profile. The description adds genuine context beyond that: nodes are auto-laid out, and the return payload is enumerated (id, title, node/edge counts, labels, link). It stops short of noting that repeated calls create duplicate flows, which the non-idempotent hint implies but does not spell out.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then the auto-layout behavior, then the return summary. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by summarizing the return values an agent would see. Combined with 100% parameter coverage in the schema and entity annotations, an agent has what it needs to invoke this correctly; only the sibling routing is left implicit.

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%, so the schema already fully documents text, title, org_id, team_id, direction, and folder_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Turn ... into a saved Wavelength flow') and enumerates the accepted input sources (transcript, call notes, spoken description). It does not name its closest sibling create_flow_from_graph, so the agent must infer differentiation from the input type alone.

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 tells the agent what kinds of input fit (natural-language process descriptions), which implies usage, but it never says when to prefer this over create_flow_from_graph or notes_to_flow, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage 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.