Compose a flow

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: dependency order resolution, per-step decision register assembly, and merging of tokens and regulatory anchors. This adds meaningful context beyond a simple 'compose flow' label. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects.

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 sentences: the first details the core logic, the second provides a use case. The description is efficient and front-loaded with key functionality. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate parameter guidance) but is not verbose.

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 adequately conveys what the tool returns (dependency order, decision register, token/anchor union). It is sufficiently complete for a flow composition tool, though parameter 'name' lacks explanation.

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?

The description explains the 'ids' parameter as a 'list of ids' for component assembly. However, it does not address the 'name' parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema but is incomplete for all parameters.

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 the verb 'assemble' and resource 'multi-component flow'. It specifies key operations: dependency-resolved order, per-step decision register, and union of tokens + regulatory anchors. The use case 'building a KYC / order / onboarding surface end to end' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_components or get_component.

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 implies usage for assembling a flow from component IDs, with a concrete use case. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks proactive direction.

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