cigchat_flow_set_default_start_flow

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the endpoint, the required scope, and a reset behavior, but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., impacts on existing conversations or whether the change is reversible beyond the main reset). This is adequate but not rich, hence a 3.

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 sentence that packs purpose, reset behavior, endpoint, and authorization scope without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses no unnecessary words, earning a high score.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to reset, the endpoint, and the required scope. It does not mention the effect on new vs. existing conversations, but for a configuration setter, the provided details are sufficient for most use cases.

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 schema already describes sub_flow_ns as accepting a namespace ID or exact name with automatic resolution. The description adds valuable parameter-level guidance by specifying that passing 'main' resets the flow, which is not in the schema. This extra semantic information enhances usability beyond the schema.

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's function: 'Set default bot start flow.' It also includes a specific reset behavior ('use main to reset the start flow to main flow'), adding distinct purpose beyond the name. The endpoint and scope requirement further clarify its role, distinguishing it from sibling tools like the web chat widget variant.

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 a concrete usage instruction for resetting the flow ('use main to reset the start flow to main flow') and mentions the required authorization scope ('Requires the Manage Flow scope'). This gives context on when and how to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like the web chat widget tool.

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