update_integration_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only says 'update' but doesn't disclose whether this is a full replacement or partial update, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. Missing details on version handling and whether other fields are preserved.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with purpose. A slightly more structured format with bullet points could improve clarity without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain update semantics, idempotency, or how it relates to sibling tools like save_integration_flow_version. Context signals indicate an output schema exists but description does not leverage it.

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 description must compensate. It mentions 'name' and 'ZIP content' but doesn't explain the purpose of required parameters 'version' and 'iflow_id', nor the exact format of artifact_content_base64. Two of four parameters lack any contextual meaning.

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 updates an existing integration flow, specifying exactly what can be updated: name and/or ZIP content. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_integration_flow or delete_integration_flow.

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 (when you need to update an existing flow's name or content), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like save_integration_flow_version or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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