flow_use_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely important trait: the tool is prepare-only unless auto_confirm is set, so the agent knows opening a tool is non-destructive by default. It omits other relevant behavior — whether a connected session/project is required, what state the opened tool leaves behind, and what happens to params that don't match the target 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?

Two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, followed immediately by the most consequential behavioral caveat. The clause about optionally filling configuration parameters is mildly redundant with the schema, but there is no padding.

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 5-parameter tool (with a nested object) and no output schema and no annotations, the description is only minimally sufficient. It does not explain what an agent gets back after opening a tool, nor the relationship between project_name/campaign reuse and an already-open session — details the agent must have since there is no return schema to fall back on.

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 all five parameters, including the campaign/project_name reuse semantics and the reserved auto_confirm flag. The description's only parameter-related statement ('optionally fill its configuration parameters') restates the schema rather than adding syntax, format, or validation meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('any tool by name in Google Flow'), plus the optional parameter-filling behavior. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling flow_use_grid_architect (one specific tool) by saying 'any tool', but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

It gives one useful usage signal — 'Prepare-only by default (auto_confirm=false)' — which tells the agent the call will not execute anything by default. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this generic opener over flow_use_grid_architect, flow_open_tools_gallery, or whether flow_connect must run first. Usage is only implied.

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