flow_upload

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that files become visible in the DevFlow UI and accessible to other agents, and that kind='plan' links the file. However, it omits details on idempotency, overwriting behavior, error handling, and how current flow is determined when flowId is omitted.

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?

Description is well-structured: a single clear sentence followed by bullet points of common use cases. It is not overly verbose, though some redundancy could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema is present, yet the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a success flag or object ID). It also lacks details on error scenarios. For a simple upload tool, the description is mostly adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining each enum value for 'kind' and noting that flowId defaults to current flow. This provides more context than the schema alone.

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 tool uploads a file as an attachment to the current flow and lists supported file types. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling 'flow_upload_file', which could cause confusion.

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?

Provides explicit use cases for different 'kind' values (plan, summary, design, decision, notes). The agent can easily determine when to use this tool for text-based files. It lacks guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for binary files) or alternatives.

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