update_flow_step_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, if permissions are needed, how existing values are handled, or side effects on order. It only clarifies identification, leaving safety and behavioral context ambiguous.

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 concise sentences with zero filler. Front-loaded with verb and resource, followed by essential usage hints. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain return values or success indicators. It covers the mutation scope but lacks post-condition details. Given the tool's moderate complexity, it is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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 schema already documents parameters. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing partial update ('Send only what you are changing') and identification guidance. This is adequate but not exceptional beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it changes an existing flow-step prompt attachment, specifies the two modifiable attributes (channel and display order), and explicitly distinguishes the identifier (linkId vs snippet id). This differentiates it from sibling tools like attach, detach, reorder, and 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?

The description tells the agent to use linkId from list_flow_step_prompts or attach response and to send only what is changing, implying partial update. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough against siblings.

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