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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool refuses when the flow is already in a solution, which tells the agent how failure states arise. Annotations already declare it is a non-destructive, idempotent write, so without a return format or permission requirements it lands at 4.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action leads, the failure condition follows, and the optional-parameter note closes it out.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the action, a failure mode, and the optional parameter default. It could still note what the call returns or the connection prerequisites, but nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters including the discovery path for solutionId are already documented in the schema; the description only restates the optionality of solutionId. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 — moving a flow into a solution — which is unambiguous. No sibling tool performs a solution-assignment action, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied; the description never says when an agent should reach for this tool versus other flow tools in the family. The 'omit for the default solution' note gives a small conditional hint but is not a when-to-use statement.

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