create_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but omits important details such as required permissions, whether the flow is published by default, reversibility, or what response is returned. The only behavioral nuance is the option to provide inline JSON or clone, but this is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 immediately conveys the core purpose and the two main options. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant phrasing or irrelevant details.

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 7-parameter create operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It covers the core action and main options but does not mention return values, edge cases, or default behaviors (e.g., what happens when publish is false). The schema fills in parameter details, but the overall context could be richer.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that flow_json is for inline definition and clone_flow_id is for cloning from an existing flow, which is not explicitly tied in the schema. This helps an agent understand the relationship between these mutually exclusive parameters.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('WhatsApp Flow'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_flows and update_flow_metadata. It also mentions two distinct creation modes (inline JSON or clone), adding specificity beyond a generic 'create' statement.

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 clear context that this tool is for creating a new flow, as opposed to updating or listing. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the context is unambiguous. Mentioning the two creation paths gives a hint of when to use flow_json vs clone_flow_id, though no detailed guidance is given.

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