Add or replace a field in a flow's output data to define what the flow returns.
Add or replace one of a flow's output-data fields (what it returns to a scenario that composes it).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| flowId | Yes | ||
| default | Yes | ||
| project | No | Path to the project root (same folder the side panel connects to). Defaults to the EASYSPEC_PROJECT environment variable if omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility for disclosing side effects. 'Add or replace' explicitly communicates that an existing field is overwritten and a new one is created if absent, which is the primary mutating behavior. It does not mention validation or permissions, but the core behavioral trait is clearly stated.
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 a single, direct sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, and the parenthetical clarification adds value without bloating the text.
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 simple tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the operation's core purpose and side effects. It lacks explicit usage contrast, but the essential information for calling the tool is present, making it adequately complete.
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?
Only the 'project' parameter has a schema description; 'flowId', 'name', and 'default' are undocumented. The overall description implies that 'name' is the field identifier and 'default' is the field's default value, but it does not explicitly define them, leaving some ambiguity. This partial inferred meaning raises the score above the low coverage baseline but does not fully compensate.
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's action ('Add or replace') and its target resource ('one of a flow's output-data fields'), with an explanatory clause defining what that field represents. It is distinct from sibling tools by specifically referencing output-data fields, making its 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?
The description does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like remove_output_field or set_flow_dataset, nor does it state when to prefer it over them. The phrase 'Add or replace' implies use for creating or updating fields, but no explicit guidance is given for selecting between related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.