fl_flow_set_var

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it falls well short. It does not say whether this mutates and persists the flow, what happens when the step's value is not a literal, whether the change is reversible, or what errors occur for a bad step index.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the key transformation stated first and the example after. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves little room for the context that is missing elsewhere.

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 mutation tool with three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema and an unexplained required parameter, one sentence is not enough. An agent cannot tell whether the flow must be loaded first, what state the flow ends up in, or how to confirm success.

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 33%: only 'step' is documented, and that documentation lives in the schema, not the description. The description does clarify that 'var' becomes the {{var}} template, but the required 'name' parameter (presumably the flow identifier) is never mentioned or explained anywhere.

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 verb and resource are concrete: convert a step's literal value into a {{var}} placeholder, illustrated with the recording-by-demonstration scenario. It is clearly distinct from fl_run, fl_record_start and fl_flow, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

"e.g. after recording by demonstration" gives one concrete situation in which to reach for this tool. There is no guidance on prerequisites (must the flow be open or stopped?), on when not to use it, or on alternatives such as editing the flow directly.

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