add_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely states the operation without explaining side effects (e.g., modifying model state), validation rules, error conditions, or the effect on existing flows. This is insufficient given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects).

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It could be slightly improved by front-loading the core purpose, but it is already efficient and clear. Every word contributes.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It lacks return value expectations, prerequisites (e.g., existing model), and integration context with sibling tools. The user has minimal guidance beyond the schema.

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 each parameter having a description. The top-level description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. According to guidelines, since coverage is high, baseline score is 3.

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 'Add a flow between stocks in the current model' clearly states the action (add), the resource (flow), and the context (between stocks in the current model). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'add_stock' and 'add_connector'.

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 implies when to use the tool (when adding a flow) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools. While the sibling tools have distinct purposes, no usage context or prerequisites are given.

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