update_flow

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it uses optimistic concurrency via expectedVersion, returns 409 on conflict, and only updates provided fields. This provides sufficient transparency for an update tool.

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 concise sentences, no redundancy. The key information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful guidance.

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 description covers the update process, conflict handling, and field passing, which is adequate for a mutation tool with no output schema. It lacks return value details but that can be inferred from the update context.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the workflow: expectedVersion must be obtained by reading first, and fields should contain only changed values. This gives practical context beyond the schema definitions.

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 explicitly states 'Update a flow draft', providing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_flow (creates new) and read_flow (reads), as well as other draft actions like discard_flow_draft.

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 gives explicit instructions: read first to get expectedVersion, retry on 409 conflict, and pass only changed fields in camelCase. This guides the agent on proper use and error handling, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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