cigchat_flow_update_closing_note

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 does disclose an important requirement: 'Requires the "Manage Flow" scope on the token.' However, it does not describe update semantics (partial vs full replacement), return values, or side effects, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes only essential context (endpoint and scope). Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 it's an update tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits crucial context such as whether all fields are optional, the effect of the update, and any expected response. The scope mention is helpful but insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further inference.

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 only 20% (only 'id' has an example), and the description does not explain any parameters beyond saying 'update a closing note.' It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage; fields like 'require_summary' and 'require_attachment' remain ambiguous, and no clarification is provided in prose.

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 'Update a closing note in the current flow', which specifies the verb (update) and resource (closing note). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/delete/get closing notes. The inclusion of the endpoint and scope requirement adds clarity 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 usage by stating the action, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like creating or deleting closing notes. It mentions the required 'Manage Flow' scope, which is a prerequisite, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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