Update Flow

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

Beyond the idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, it discloses the key behavioral trait that the supplied descriptor and custom_fields REPLACE stored values rather than merge, which is exactly the data-loss risk an agent needs to know. It also explains that validation runs on update and that a running flow is rejected unless forced.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the critical construction rule, then the failure condition. Every clause carries operational information; there is no restatement of the title or filler.

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 six-parameter mutation with a nested descriptor object and no output schema, this covers prerequisites, overwrite semantics, and the running-flow constraint. The one gap is what happens on validation failure (error shape, whether a partial write occurs), which the agent must discover by calling.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by telling the agent how to construct the 'flow' parameter (complete descriptor, reuse IDs, pull from get_flow) and by clarifying that force applies to running flows. It does not add meaning to 'description' or 'custom_fields' beyond the schema's own replacement note.

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 ('Update an existing Appmixer flow'), names the mutable facets (descriptor and/or name), and adds that the flow is re-validated. This is clearly distinguishable from create_flow, clone_flow, and validate_flow in the sibling list.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition and workflow: start from the current descriptor obtained via get_flow with include_descriptor=true, keep existing component IDs, and preserve untouched configuration. It also states the exclusion condition for running flows and the escape hatch (force).

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