Validate Flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that by framing the tool as a validation check rather than a mutation. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the check runs server-side, returns per-component errors such as wrong port names, missing required fields, and invalid variables, and acts as a gate before starting a flow.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the error detail and the operational constraint. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter read-only validation tool with no return schema, the description gives enough: what it validates, the nature of the errors returned, and the precondition for use. It does not specify whether validation is scoped to a specific version or requires particular permissions, but those gaps are minor here.

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?

There is a single required 'id' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it fully. The description adds no additional meaning about the ID (format, source, or lookup), which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema carries parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Validate an Appmixer flow') and scopes it as 'server-side', which separates it from execution-oriented siblings like test_flow or start_flow. It also names the concrete outputs (per-component errors), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces.

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?

'A flow must be valid to start' gives a clear precondition that ties this tool to the start_flow workflow, implying when to call it. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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