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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the flow is created as a draft and disassembled, sending nothing until tested and activated. This goes beyond the schema and gives crucial context about the tool's side effects.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds relevant information without unnecessary fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations, the description is lean. It covers the core creation action and the draft state, but lacks details on return values, prerequisites, or post-creation workflow. The graph format clarification helps, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 75%, with parameters like name, trigger_type, and trigger_config already described. The description adds value by clarifying that the 'graph' parameter uses the same format as get_flow's return value, which is helpful, but it does not expand on the other parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function with the verb 'Crea' (creates) and resource 'automatización' (automation). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like test_flow, activate_flow, and arm_flow by noting the automation is created in draft/disassembled state, implying a distinct creation step.

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 implies the tool is the first step in creating an automation, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. The note about being born as a draft suggests subsequent use of test_flow and activate_flow, but this guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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