scrapeer_update_flow

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

Annotations only offer destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: it overwrites the WHOLE flow (every block, edge, config) and explains optimistic concurrency behavior (version stamp, 409 conflict, re-fetch retry). This substantially exceeds what annotations provide and aligns with them.

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 dense yet efficiently structured: purpose, warning, alternative, use-case, prerequisites, and concurrency are each one sentence that earns its place. No fluff, and only slightly long due to necessary safety 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?

For a destructive, complex operation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, overwrite scope, prerequisites, conflict handling, and alternative. The combination of annotations, schema, and description leaves no major knowledge gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the overwrite warning in data but adds no meaning beyond schema. It references block catalog for node types, but that is usage guidance rather than parameter semantics, so no uplift.

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 replaces a flow's entire definition with supplied JSON, explicitly identifying the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling scrapeer_patch_flow by positioning itself for wholesale rewrites, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance ('USE THIS TOOL WHEN: you need to apply a wholesale rewrite...') and when-not-to ('PREFER scrapeer_patch_flow for incremental edits'). Also directs users to scrapeer_get_block_catalog for valid types and scrapeer_validate_flow for dry-run, going beyond basic alternatives.

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