create_object_flow

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic creation action and gives no information about side effects, prerequisites (e.g., that the ActivityNodes must already exist), validation, or error behavior. This is insufficient 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose efficiently with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple creation tool.

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?

With no annotations, no parameter documentation, and no mention of prerequisites or return values, the description is too thin. Even for a simple tool, it lacks critical context such as the need for existing elements and the expected output, making it incomplete relative to the complexity of the action.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters. The names activity_id, source_id, and target_id are self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify that source and target are ActivityNodes or that activity is the containing Activity, leaving ambiguity about what IDs to provide.

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: creating an ObjectFlow edge between two ActivityNodes within an Activity. The verb and resource are specific, and the context is given. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from create_control_flow or other edge-creation tools, so it relies on the type name to distinguish.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_control_flow or create_item_flow. No context about selection criteria or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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