update-flow

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

With no annotations, the description reveals that the operation is a PATCH (implying mutation) and requires the complete properties object. It adds transparency by describing the exact workflow (get then update), but lacks details on error handling or effects on omitted fields.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states the action clearly, and the second provides a concrete usage example. Every word is meaningful.

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?

The description covers the main use case and parameter context, but lacks information about the return value (no output schema) and error scenarios. For a mutation tool, mentioning what the tool returns or potential errors would improve completeness.

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 adds value by listing typical fields within propertiesJson (displayName, state, connectionReferences, definition) that are not in the schema description, aiding the agent in constructing the JSON.

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 it updates a flow via PATCH, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create-flow, delete-flow, and enable/disable by implying modification of existing properties. The example pattern of get-flow then tweak reinforces its purpose.

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 explains when to use this tool via the typical edit pattern and emphasizes providing the FULL properties object. However, it doesn't explicitly advise against using it for enabling/disabling flows, which have dedicated sibling tools.

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