create_flow_api

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Create' with no details on side effects, permissions, failure modes, or return value. This is minimal and does not add meaningful context beyond the operation itself.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and is appropriately front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It lacks context about the return value, error conditions, or behavior of the created flow API. This is a significant gap given the tool's complexity.

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 all 12 parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the workspace scope, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Arc flow API') with a scope ('for a workspace'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_flow_api, list_flow_apis, and delete_flow_api. It directly states what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 creating a new flow API) but provides no explicit context, exclusions, or mention of alternatives. It doesn't clarify prerequisites like needing an existing workspace or how this relates to update or delete operations.

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