Update a cloud flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this changes a live environment, requires confirm: true, preserves connection references, replaces properties.definition in the existing clientdata, and that clientData replaces the whole document. It does not mention the dry-run behavior or return format, though the schema's confirm parameter covers the dry-run behavior.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with no filler. Every sentence contributes: the core action, the two ways to supply a definition, the clientData override, the prerequisite read, the managed-flow exclusion, and the confirm requirement.

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 complex 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important workflow: how to supply changes, what gets replaced, what is preserved, the managed-flow constraint, and the confirm requirement. It does not describe the return value, but the schema and the tool's update nature make that a minor gap.

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 coverage is 88%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantics beyond the schema for key parameters: steps/trigger rebuild the definition, definition is a ready-made alternative, clientData replaces the entire document, and connection references are preserved. It does not add detail for every parameter, but the schema already documents most of them.

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?

States a specific action ('Change a flow's name, description or definition in the environment') with a clear resource and scope. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cs_create_flow, cs_set_flow_state, and cs_get_flow without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: read the current flow with cs_get_flow includeDefinition first, use steps/trigger to rebuild definitions the way cs_build_flow_definition does, and notes that managed flows cannot be edited in place but should be edited in their source environment or through a solution. This is strong when/when-not and alternative-tool guidance.

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