bowire.auth-recording.capture-flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses that Bowire EXECUTES the flow as an outbound HTTP call, that confirmation is required by default, that secrets come from {{env.NAME}} rather than being inlined, and that an unsupported host produces an error. It does not address idempotency or what happens to an existing recording under the same id.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and its scope lead, followed by execution semantics, safety mechanics, and the host prerequisite. Every sentence carries information; the CLI/workbench parity clause is the only mildly expendable part.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important ground: side effects, confirmation protocol, secret handling, and failure mode on unsupported hosts. Remaining gaps (overwrite behavior on duplicate id, where the token is persisted) are minor but real.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: confirm/confirmationToken implement a two-step pending-confirmation flow, and flow secrets resolve from env vars. It does not clarify id/name/workspace interaction beyond what the schema already says.

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: it runs an auth flow (defined parenthetically as a scriptable login → token chain) and stores the captured token as a named recording. The parenthetical definition of 'flow' implicitly separates it from the single-request sibling bowire.auth-recording.capture, but the sibling is never named, so the distinction still takes a small inference.

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?

Gives real operating context: it is two-step by default (confirm=true / confirmationToken) and requires a host with flow-capture enabled, otherwise it errors. It never states when to prefer this over bowire.auth-recording.capture or how to obtain the confirmation token, so there is context but no explicit alternative selection.

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