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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it saves a versioned snapshot labeled 'Edited by AI agent'. That versioning side effect is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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 ordered purpose, behavior, return payload. The example 'add Snowflake after Fivetran' is duplicated verbatim from the schema, which is minor waste but everything else earns its place.

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 usefully names the return values (new node and edge counts, plus a link). For a non-idempotent mutation it could say more about failure modes (e.g., ambiguous instructions), but the core call contract is covered.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the schema's own example for 'instruction'. No additional format, length, or constraint guidance is added beyond what the schema provides.

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 (apply) and resource (an existing Wavelength flow) plus the modality that separates it from siblings: a 'plain-language edit instruction' rather than structured node/edge operations like add_nodes or update_nodes. The concrete example makes the operation unambiguous.

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 example instruction implies how the tool is used, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the node-level siblings (add_nodes, add_edges, update_nodes, remove_nodes) or format_flow. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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