flow_create_character

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the non-submitting default, the credit consumption risk on submit, and the post-submit rename of 'Untitled Character'. It omits auth/permission requirements and error behavior, but the mutation semantics and side effects are clearly stated.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the branching behavior. Dense but every clause carries information; only the repeated auto_confirm restatement is mildly redundant with the schema.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknown (what happens on submit vs. not, including credits and the rename) and reveals the returned status token. The remaining params are fully documented in the schema, so the agent has enough to invoke 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 name, description, campaign, project_name, reference_images and auto_confirm are already documented. The description's explanation of auto_confirm largely restates the schema, adding no format or syntax detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Create a new character in Google Flow Characters') and the required inputs, which cleanly separates it from siblings like flow_import_character and flow_create_scene.

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?

Explains the two operating modes and their consequences (default fills only and returns ready_for_confirmation with no credits; auto_confirm=true submits), which is exactly the when-to-use decision an agent must make. It does not name sibling alternatives such as flow_import_character for existing characters.

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