update_flow

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description goes further: it discloses partial-update semantics ('only the fields you pass change'), an immutable field, and that checks/events are full replacements rather than merges. The permission requirement for global flows explains the destructive hint rather than merely repeating it.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and constraints, then a clean Args breakdown. Efficient overall, though the Returns line partially duplicates information the output schema already provides.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, it covers the semantics an agent needs: replacement vs. merge behavior, permissions, defaults, and parameter sourcing. Return format being deferred to the output schema is appropriate.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely succeeds: flow_id source, scope values with default, checks structure (class/operator/value, at least one, replaces old), operation_config accepted formats, and events replacement. A few fields like 'entity' are terse ('New entity class'), leaving minor ambiguity about valid values.

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?

Specific verb (Change) plus resource (a Nextcloud Flow rule), with the update scope stated immediately. It clearly distinguishes itself from the create_flow/delete_flow/list_flows siblings that appear in the tool list.

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?

Gives clear context: only passed fields change, the operation class is immutable, and global flows require the destructive permission level. It also routes to list_flows for the ID and create_flow for operation_config details. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer create_flow versus update_flow, so not a full 5.

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