Create Standard Flow

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

Annotations indicate idempotent, not read-only or destructive. The description adds context about the flow structure (trigger, conditions, actions) beyond annotations, but does not discuss idempotency or return behavior.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundant information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a create tool by referencing external tool for shape details. Could benefit from mentioning return value or behavior on duplicates, but idempotency annotation covers that partially.

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 covers both parameters, but description adds meaning by explaining that 'flow' contains trigger (card object) and optional conditions/actions arrays, and references 'get_flow' for exact shape. This significantly enhances understanding.

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 action 'Create' and the resource 'standard WHEN/AND/THEN Flow'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_advanced_flow' by specifying 'standard' and provides guidance to use 'get_flow' for learning card shapes.

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 instructs to provide name and flow object with trigger, conditions, actions, and advises using 'get_flow' to learn the card shape. It implies usage for standard flows but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with 'create_advanced_flow'.

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