Update a Node-RED flow (tab)

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds substantial context beyond that: this is a full-object replacement (not a merge), it scopes destruction to one tab and leaves others intact, and it requires two specific write flags. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation 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 tight sentences: scope/replacement first, then the recommended workflow, then prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description covers scope, replacement semantics, the read-before-write workflow, and auth prerequisites. It is close to complete; the only gap is any note on the response/confirmation, which is minor given no output schema.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that 'flow' is the whole object to be sent back and that the operation is keyed 'by id', but adds no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (replace) plus resource and scope ('a single Node-RED flow (one tab) and its nodes by id, leaving other tabs untouched'). It clearly separates the single-tab scope from the broader nodered_set_flows / nodered_get_flows siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nodered_create_flow, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow ('Read it first with nodered_get_flow, edit, then send the whole flow object back') that names the correct read alternative and tells the agent the order of operations. It also lists prerequisites (HA_ALLOW_WRITE, HA_ALLOW_CONFIG_WRITE). No explicit exclusions for when not to use it, keeping it at 4.

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