flowker-execute

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

Annotations already cover destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds some useful context by referencing auth expectations, Idempotency-Key requirements, and webhook method/path behavior, but it does not describe consequences, required confirmations, or error/response behavior beyond what annotations and schema already imply.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the tool's core purpose, and the second directs the agent to the necessary discovery step. There is no filler, repetition, or wasted content.

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 generic executor with 8 parameters, no output schema, and destructive annotation, the description is somewhat thin. It relies heavily on flowker-discover to provide the missing behavioral and configuration context. This is a reasonable design, but the description itself does not fully equip an agent to invoke the tool correctly without first consulting a sibling tool.

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 8 parameters, including body, headers, pathParams, queryParams, mutationReason, and confirmMutation. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific action ('Execute Flowker API actions') and clearly positions it as the execute counterpart to flowker-discover. It does not enumerate concrete scenarios like starting workflows or posting webhooks, but the verb-resource pair and sibling distinction are reasonably clear.

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 gives explicit guidance to 'Use flowker-discover first' to inspect auth expectations, Idempotency-Key requirements, configuration payloads, and webhook behavior. This clearly signals a prerequisite and distinguishes the discovery tool from the execution tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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