efm_validate_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'without changing anything', clearly indicating a non-destructive read-only operation. It also explains the purpose (surfaces invalid/misconfigured components). While it doesn't describe error behavior or output format, the presence of an output schema covers that. The non-mutating trait is a key behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Validation results for a flow') and immediately clarifies it is non-destructive. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 has an output schema (which explains return values) and only one parameter, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose and non-destructive behavior. The only missing element is explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but this is minor given the clear separation from other efm tools. The simplicity of the tool means the description suffices.

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 does not elaborate on the flow_id parameter at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description could have added context about what flow_id refers to, but the parameter name is self-explanatory and the schema provides its type. The description adds no value beyond the schema, which is minimal. For a single trivial parameter, this is acceptable.

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 validates a flow, surfacing invalid or misconfigured components. It uses a specific verb (validate) and resource (flow) and adds the context of being the same check EFM runs before publish. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but no sibling appears to be a validation tool, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 the tool is used before publishing to validate a flow, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are mentioned, and there is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites. The publish context gives some usage hint, but it lacks explicit routing.

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