Create an API flow between two nodes

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral constraints: direction is caller→callee, start/end must be existing node ids, APIs are first-class (apis table) not generic edges, and it's for runtime data flows. This goes well beyond a simple 'create' and gives the agent necessary operational context.

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 bit long but well-organized: definition, examples, direction clarification, distinction from sibling, usage guidance, constraint, and rule reference. Each sentence contributes. Slightly more verbose than the highest-caliber examples, but no waste.

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?

It covers purpose, constraints, examples, and references a rule. No output schema exists, so return value is not clarified, and error conditions (e.g., what happens if start/end don't exist) are only implied. Still, given the tool's moderate complexity and rich description, it is mostly 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?

The description adds meaning to start/end ('must be existing node ids', 'direction is caller → callee') beyond the schema's terse 'Source/Target node id'. However, with 50% schema description coverage, it does not compensate for undocumented params like label, metadata, and description. Slug remains underdefined ('Ground slug' is vague).

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Records an API flow') and immediately clarifies scope with examples (screen→endpoint, endpoint→table, external integration). It explicitly distinguishes from create_edge by stating this is for runtime flows vs dependency, making the purpose unambiguous even among sibling tools.

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 explicit when-to-use vs alternatives: 'for a build-time/structural reliance use create_edge (dependency) instead.' It also provides selection guidance ('Add the flows a maintainer would trace; don't wire everything'), telling the agent which edges to create.

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