scrapeer_patch_flow

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds critical behavior: per-operation server-side validation, optimistic concurrency via version stamp, and the return value (post-patch flow plus operation summary). No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (PREFERRED, USE THIS TOOL WHEN, DO NOT USE, ALWAYS calls) and every sentence contributes meaningful guidance. No fluff or redundancy.

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 complex tool with nested operation objects and no output schema, the description covers preconditions, concurrency, validation, and return value. It gives the agent all necessary context to invoke the tool successfully and understand consequences.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters in detail (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the purpose of baseProjectEventID ('so the MCP server can attach the version stamp for optimistic concurrency') and emphasizing that operations are applied in order, which supplements the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Apply a list of granular patch operations to a flow's graph' and lists the specific operation types. It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool scrapeer_update_flow by positioning this as the preferred option for incremental edits.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN: making targeted changes... DO NOT USE: when the change touches most of the flow at once (use scrapeer_update_flow).' It also gives mandatory preconditions (call scrapeer_get_block_catalog and scrapeer_get_flow) with reasoning.

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