Chat with the Flow agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: character_ids become mentions, credit spends are gated by max_credits with a default of 0 meaning 'never', and a denied spend leaves the request pending for flow_agent_respond. It omits return format and session semantics, but the approval gating logic is unusually well explained for an unannotated tool.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the mention and credit mechanics. Near-optimal, though the mid-sentence parenthetical and the credit clause are slightly compressed.

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 side-effecting, unannotated, output-schema-less tool, the description covers purpose, the credit-approval branch, the pending handoff, and the mention behavior. The only real gap is the unexplained new_session parameter, which a caller could trip over.

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 coverage is only 20% (project_id only), so the description must compensate, and it does for two of the three undocumented params: character_ids ('attached as mentions') and max_credits (approval threshold, default 0 = never). The new_session boolean remains unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Send a message') and resource ('Flow's creative agent') and clarifies the agent's capabilities (brainstorms, writes prompts, generates). It is distinguishable from flow_agent_respond, which it names, but the differentiation is only partial since respond is a continuation rather than a competing entry point.

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 implies usage context and names flow_agent_respond as the follow-up for pending approvals, which is genuinely useful. However, it never states when to prefer this over flow_agent_respond to initiate work, nor when to flip new_session, so an agent must infer the entry-point conditions.

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