List, create or change Flow characters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that 'list' is the default action, that 'create' draws from an existing project image, that 'info' is consumed by the Flow agent, and that calls are free (cost transparency). It does not cover permissions/auth needs, whether 'update' replaces or merges unset fields, or what each action returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the concept so the per-action clauses parse quickly, then one clause per action with no filler. The trailing 'Free' is short and adds genuine decision-relevant information.

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 4-action, 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers actions, prerequisites, cross-tool usage, and cost. The remaining gap is return-value shape (e.g. what fields a listed character includes), which matters somewhat since no output schema exists.

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 57%, and the description compensates by explaining image_id (a project image from flow_assets), character (name or id, for update), voice (a name obtained from action 'voices'), and how name/info/voice combine on create. Only project_id and the 2000-char limit on info go unmentioned, and both are self-evident or already in schema.

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 concrete resource (Flow characters), defines what they are (reference image + name + notes + voice that persist a person across generations), and enumerates every action with its effect. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like flow_assets or generate_image, which it references rather than overlaps with.

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?

Usage is spelled out per action, including prerequisites ('create' needs an image already in the project; 'voices' needs one character in the project) and the downstream path (use in generate_video, generate_image, or flow_chat with characters: [name]). What's missing is an explicit statement of when NOT to use it, e.g. versus managing assets in flow_assets.

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