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

Annotations already mark this as a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds the non-obvious guard behavior that an already-solutioned flow is rejected, and clarifies that omitting solutionId targets the default solution, which is useful beyond annotation data. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the main action and key guard placed first. The second sentence gives the one parameter nuance worth calling out before invoking.

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 that all parameter semantics are fully documented and the guard behavior is disclosed, this is reasonably complete for a mutating tool without an output schema. It does not describe return values, but the absence of an output schema and the simple success/failure behavior makes that a minor gap.

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 explains all three parameters, including how to discover solutionId. The description adds only a restatement that solutionId is optional for the default solution, which is already 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Move a flow into a solution') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like update_live_flow or set_live_flow_state by naming the solution-migration operation. It also specifies the key guard condition, so the tool's function is 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?

It clarifies the main conditional for invoking it ('Refuses if the flow is already in one') and explains the optional parameter's behavior, but it never points to any sibling or states when an alternative should be used instead. The usage context is implied from the name and action rather than explicit.

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