add_file_to_flow

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only (write operation) and non-destructive. The description adds that the file must be finalized, but does not disclose whether re-assignment replaces existing flows, or what happens if the file or flow does not exist. With annotations present, the description's additional behavioral info is minimal.

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 concise, using two sentences with no redundant information. The key action and context are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and one usage context. It lacks details on error conditions (e.g., file not finalized, invalid flow ID) but is sufficient for typical use cases given the sibling tools and schema descriptions.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the purpose: assign a finalized file to an architectural flow. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_file_to_module by specifying the target resource as a flow, and provides context about the requirement for connectivity.

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 indicates when to use this tool by noting that every finalized file needs at least one flow assignment, implying this is for maintaining architectural connectivity. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like add_file_flows (plural).

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