set_flow_starting_points

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and 'Replace the current page's Flows list' usefully discloses that the existing list is overwritten rather than appended, plus the constraint that entries must point at a top-level FRAME. However, it omits permission requirements, what happens to flows that don't match, and any error/return 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the replacement scope leads and the definition of Flows and the FRAME constraint follow economically.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested-object parameter, the description covers the core replacement semantics and the FRAME constraint but leaves permissions, edge cases, and result behavior unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning by explaining the array represents flow entry points whose nodeId must reference a top-level FRAME, and implies the name field labels the flow. It still doesn't clarify the array-of-objects shape or that name is optional.

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 states a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('current page's Flows list') and clarifies the domain term by defining Flows as 'named prototype entry points' pointing at a top-level FRAME. It is clear on its own, though it never names the closely related sibling set_prototype_start_node to disambiguate.

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?

It implies usage (defining a page's prototype entry points) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternatives versus siblings like set_prototype_start_node or set_prototype_settings. The agent must infer the context.

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