patch_flows_flow_id_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Update Flow Metadata' gives no indication of permissions required, partial vs full update behavior, reversibility, or response format. It's essentially a tautology of the tool name, providing zero additional behavioral context.

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 an extremely short single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks substance and structure; it is barely more than the tool name. While there is no waste, it is under-specified, making it only minimally acceptable.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema information, the description offers almost no context. It doesn't explain the effect of the update, supported fields, or how it relates to sibling tools like patch_flows_flow_id_assets. The agent has insufficient information to use it confidently.

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?

The input schema defines flowId (required) and wabaAccountId (optional), but the description ignores parameters entirely. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining what wabaAccountId represents or how it affects the update, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'Update Flow Metadata' clearly identifies the action (update) and the target (flow metadata), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_flows_flow_id, create_flows, and delete_flows_flow_id. However, it doesn't elaborate on what specific metadata can be updated, so it's clear but slightly under-specified.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like patch_flows_flow_id_assets, nor does it state prerequisites or conditions. This leaves the agent without direction on when to choose this tool.

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