Start Flow

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful precondition about flow validity/completeness, but says nothing about what a successful call produces (an execution? a run ID?), what happens on an invalid flow, or whether assigned accounts are required.

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, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the constraint following immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and annotations carry the idempotency/safety story, so the definition is nearly adequate. The gap is the absence of an output schema combined with no statement of the return value, plus no mention of prerequisites such as account assignment, which matters for a flow-start operation.

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% with a single required 'id' parameter that is already documented as a string with minLength 1. The description's phrase 'by ID' adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Start an Appmixer flow by ID'), which is unambiguous about the action taken. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as stop_flow, test_flow, or trigger_component, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 precondition 'the flow must be valid and complete' implies the agent should validate first (there is a validate_flow sibling), but that route is never named. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus test_flow or trigger_component, leaving the choice to inference.

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