Set flow

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: it writes to flow.json and live-updates the Flow tab. It also explains default node behavior and position preservation. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and adequately addresses transparency.

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 concise at three sentences, with each sentence adding essential information: purpose, input requirements and defaults, and side effects. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words.

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 (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what to provide, default behavior, and side effects (file write and UI update). No critical information is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining that 'Nodes default to one per planned screen and keep any positions the user has dragged', which goes beyond the schema's descriptions of edges and nodes arrays.

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 specifies the verb 'Set/update' and the resource 'user-journey graph the flow canvas renders', clearly defining the tool's action and target. It differentiates from sibling tools by detailing the focus on edges and node defaults, which is unique among the listed sibling tools.

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 for when to use the tool (to set/update the flow graph) and mentions the input required (edges). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for related tasks, such as pixl_plan_screens, leaving some ambiguity.

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