gflow_instructions_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that unlisted cards are removed, calls the operation destructive, and notes it is credits-free. It does not mention auth requirements or rollback possibility, but the key mutation consequences are clearly surfaced.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core full-sync/destructive behavior, and every sentence adds critical information: replacement semantics, card schema, and cost. There is no filler or repetition of schema field names.

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 destructive complexity, the description covers the most important operational facts: what gets replaced, what gets deleted, and the card schema. The output schema exists, so the absence of return-value detail is acceptable, but the undocumented 'profile' parameter and lack of any auth note leave minor gaps.

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 input schema provides 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does define the exact card shape ({'title', 'text', 'ref': [...], 'enabled'}), which is valuable. However, the 'profile' parameter is completely unexplained, and 'project' is only implied through the phrase 'Flow project's brief'.

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/resource pairing: 'FULL-SYNC a Flow project's brief' and explicitly states it 'REPLACES all existing instruction cards' with the given set. It clearly differentiates itself from incremental siblings like gflow_instructions_add and gflow_instructions_rm by calling out the destructive, whole-set behavior.

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 communicates that this is for declarative full-sync replacement, which implies the use case but never explicitly says 'use this instead of add/remove for bulk replacement' or warns against using it for single-card edits. The destructive framing provides some routing signal, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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