create_cloud_flow

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the created flow is left in a stopped state rather than activated, a preview hash is mandatory as a guard, and readback plus solution membership are reported separately, which warns the agent that verification is a distinct step. Missing are permission requirements and whether re-invocation with a stale hash fails hard.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the create/preview action is front-loaded before the prerequisites. The final clause about readback and solution membership is a little dense but still earns its place as a behavioral warning.

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 create tool with five parameters, a nested free-form spec object, and no output schema, the definition covers the workflow and the hash guard but leaves the spec contract and environment_profile purpose opaque. An agent could invoke it correctly in outline, but not confidently with respect to what the spec must contain.

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 only 20% — just environment_profile is documented in the schema — so the description has to carry weight. It implies expected_hash ('Requires preview hash'), dry_run ('Preview'), and spec ('validated local flow spec'), but gives no format or content guidance for the nested spec object or what solution_unique_name accepts. That is helpful but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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 pair and resource: preview and create a stopped cloud flow inside an existing unmanaged solution, driven by a validated local flow spec. That is far more informative than the bare name. It stops short of 5 because it never names the closely related sibling (prepare_cloud_flow) that an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'using a validated local flow spec' and 'Requires preview hash' together signal that a preview/prepare step must happen first. However, no sibling is named as the prerequisite, and there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use update_cloud_flow for existing flows, set_cloud_flow_state to activate).

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