cigchat_flow_set_web_chat_widget_default_start_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states the required 'Manage Flow' scope and the POST endpoint, but it does not disclose consequences such as overwriting the existing default, return behavior, or error handling. This is a meaningful but incomplete transparency profile.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, and every clause contributes: purpose, special 'main' value, endpoint, and auth scope. It is slightly repetitive with 'start flow' and 'main flow' but remains concise and readable.

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 one-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: target widget, purpose, parameter special value, endpoint, and required scope. It omits return/error details and does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling set_default_start_flow, but those are minor gaps for this simple mutation.

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 documents sub_flow_ns fully (namespace id or exact name, server resolves automatically). The description adds the valuable special-case hint to use 'main' for the main flow, which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent pick the correct value.

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 opens with the specific action 'Set default start flow for web chat widget', clearly identifying the verb, resource, and target. The 'web chat widget' qualifier differentiates it from the sibling tool cigchat_flow_set_default_start_flow.

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?

It provides clear context that this is for configuring the web chat widget and explicitly advises using 'main' to set the main flow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the widget-specific context makes usage clear.

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