Call Flow OpenAPI

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

The description adds useful context by revealing the default use of FLOW_API_KEY and automatic x-flow-api-key header. However, it omits critical behavioral traits: since it supports POST, PATCH, and DELETE, it can perform mutations, yet no warning about destructive operations or error handling is given. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 extremely concise, two short sentences, with each providing distinct value: one states the function, the other the auth mechanism. There is no redundant or filler content, making it well-structured and efficient.

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 tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain how to construct requests, what the response format is, or how to use path/query/body parameters. It also doesn't relate to sibling tools, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke reliably.

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 high (88%), with most parameters already having descriptive text. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 tool calls the Flow OpenAPI, with a specific verb and resource. It provides a bit more detail than the title by mentioning the automatic header, but it doesn't distinguish this generic request tool from the more specific sibling tools, so it lacks full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the alternative sibling tools. The description does not mention scenarios like 'use for custom endpoints not covered by specialized tools' or any exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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