add_flow

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so it is a write operation but not destructive. The description adds that it adds a flow 'between stocks', implying model modification, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., validation, auto-positioning, impact on existing flows). Given minimal annotation coverage, the description lacks depth.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary details about prerequisites, return values, or parameter usage. It is neither overly verbose nor optimally informative.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, 2 required), the description is insufficient. It does not mention prerequisites (model and stocks must exist), return values (no output schema), or clarify optional parameters. The description should provide more context for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%: all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema, 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 action ('Add') and the resource ('flow between stocks in the current model'). It is specific about what the tool does, but does not differentiate it from siblings like 'update_flow' or 'add_aux'.

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 alternatives like 'update_flow' or 'add_connector'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., model existence, stocks must be present) or when not to use it.

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