create_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a persistent 'record' is created and that it holds 'defined steps', but says nothing about permissions, whether the record is reusable by trigger_flow, whether creation is idempotent, or what the response contains. The distinction from UI workflows is valuable context but leaves major behavioral gaps for a write 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the primary action first and the crucial scope limitation second. No filler 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?

Three simple parameters with one required and full schema coverage, plus no output schema, mean the description does not need to explain parameters. It still omits what happens after creation and how the created record is consumed, which an agent would need in order to use the tool confidently.

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 the schema already documents name, steps and description. The description only echoes 'defined steps' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a legacy bridge workflow record') and explicitly distinguishes the output from a 'Google Flow UI workflow', which separates it from flow_browser_generate_video and related siblings. It stops short of naming how it relates to list_flows or trigger_flow, so it is clear but not fully differentiated across all siblings.

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 negative guidance ('this does not create a Google Flow UI workflow') is genuinely useful for steering an agent away from the wrong tool. However, it never states when an agent should choose this tool, what the workflow is used for, or which sibling to use instead for UI-style flows.

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