update_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It notes that changes require a browser refresh to appear, which is a useful side-effect hint, but it does not explain overwrite semantics, validation behavior, error cases, or whether the definition is fully replaced.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no fluf. The parenthetical adds one relevant behavioral clue. It is concise, though arguably too terse for the complexity of the operation.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and minimal descriptions for both parameters, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to call the tool confidently. Missing details include what happens after writing, whether flowId is required in practice, and what a successful result looks like.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Modified flow definition' hints that the `definition` parameter holds the modified flow object, but it does not explain `flowId`, requiredness, or the expected structure of `definition`. This is only partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('flow definition'), making the core action clear. It distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like get_flow and validate_flow, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as validate_flow, sync_push, or get_flow. An agent must infer that this is for persisting edited flow definitions, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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