execute_flow

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, state changes, and error behavior, but it does not do so. It does not mention that executing a flow may mutate session state, how failures or rethrows behave, or whether partial execution leaves side effects. The schema hints at these behaviors through fields like stop_on_failure and rethrow, but the description itself does not surface them.

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 compact sentence with the core idea front-loaded and no filler. While it is lean and well ordered, it is also somewhat under-specified for such a complex tool, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 14-parameter control-flow executor with no annotations and many structure-dependent fields, a one-line description is not enough to guide correct invocation. It does not explain how the structure parameter selects among if/for/try block parameters, what side effects flow execution has on the session, or how errors are handled. The presence of an output schema reduces the return-value burden, but the invocation and execution semantics remain under-specified.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all 14 parameters, including structure-specific fields like then_steps, except_steps, and max_iterations. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning 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 names a specific verb ('Execute'), a resource ('structured flow'), and enumerates the supported flow types ('if/for/try'), while scoping execution to a session. This makes it reasonably distinct from sibling tools like execute_step or execute_batch, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use execute_flow versus execute_step, execute_batch, or other siblings. It only states the operation and the session context; there are no exclusions, conditions, or pointers to alternatives, so choosing this tool over its siblings is left entirely to inference.

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