Update Advanced Flow

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that replacing cards replaces the entire flow graph and returns 'broken status', which is useful context. However, it does not explain idempotency implications or potential side effects (e.g., if cards is omitted, are other fields reset?). The return value 'broken status' is ambiguous without further clarification.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states the action, second provides partial update guidance, third warns about replacement and mentions return status. No redundant or filler content. Front-loaded with purpose. Excellent conciseness for the complexity involved.

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's complexity (4 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description covers key pitfalls: partial updates, full replacement of cards, need to fetch first, and return status. However, it lacks explanation of error states, validation rules, or what 'broken status' entails. The idempotency annotation is not leveraged. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases.

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 50% (id and cards have descriptions). The description clarifies that name, enabled, and cards are optional changes, and that cards must be the full map to replace the existing graph, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema. It advises fetching first, which is actionable. However, it does not detail the structure of the cards object or constraints on name/enabled.

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 'Update an existing Advanced Flow' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_advanced_flow' and 'update_flow' by mentioning the cards replacement behavior, but does not explicitly differentiate between update_advanced_flow and update_flow. The purpose is clear but could better contrast with similar tools.

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?

Explicitly advises to 'Pass only the fields to change' and to fetch the complete cards object first when replacing cards, providing clear prerequisites and partial update behavior. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool (e.g., for creating new flows) or mention alternatives like create_advanced_flow.

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