flow_edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by revealing the workflow: the extension opens the last clip, applies the change, and downloads the result. It also discloses the trusted-input requirement and the asynchronous nature via flow_wait. It does not explicitly state whether the original file is modified, which is a minor gap for an edit operation.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose — editing an already finished video — then packs the necessary behavioral details and prerequisites into the remainder. Every clause adds useful 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational facts: what the tool does, what prerequisite must be met, and how to wait for the async result. It is slightly light on what happens to the original clip and on explicit disambiguation from flow_generate, but an agent can still select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'applies the described change' loosely maps to the prompt parameter, and the English-language tip already appears in the schema. This is the baseline case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Edit an ALREADY FINISHED video in the Omni 1.1 editor (video-to-video)'. It also clarifies the mechanism — opens the last clip in Flow, applies the change, downloads the result — which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like flow_generate that create new content rather than edit existing clips.

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 clear context: use this when editing an already finished video, not for generation. It also provides concrete operational guidance with the prerequisite 'Requires "Trusted input" enabled in the extension' and the follow-up instruction 'Wait for the result with flow_wait'. It does not explicitly name flow_generate as the alternative for new videos, but the context is strong.

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