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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the output is an interactive canvas with pan/zoom/drag, and the no-argument case silently defaults to the most recently updated flow, which is a non-obvious trait an agent must know.

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 with zero filler, front-loading what the tool produces before the parameter resolution rules. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool the safety and return-shape burden is largely handled by annotations and the description's rendering note. Minor gaps remain: no mention of behavior when a title matches multiple flows or when no flow exists, but nothing essential to calling it correctly 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds resolution semantics the schema only implies: flow_id and title are alternatives, and the description contributes the additional rule that omitting both selects the most recently updated flow — behavior not encoded anywhere in the schema.

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 ('Show a saved Wavelength flow as an interactive diagram') plus the rendering mode ('inside the chat'), which cleanly distinguishes it from data-oriented siblings like get_flow, summarize_flow, and review_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?

Gives clear invocation context: pass flow_id, or title to match by name, and specifies fallback behavior when neither is supplied. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_flow or list_flows, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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