Save Integration Flow as Version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility of disclosing behavioral traits. It notes the permission requirement ('Requires ALLOW_WRITE') and reveals a non-obvious implementation detail: the comment is applied before the version is saved since the API doesn't take it directly. This exceeds baseline, though it doesn't detail all possible side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a parenthetical explanatory note. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or filler.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, prerequisite, and a unique behavioral nuance. It doesn't mention return values or error conditions, but it provides enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with the schema.

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 schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful note about the comment parameter's behavior but doesn't add meaning to artifactId or version beyond what the schema already provides. Overall, it adds modest value without fully compensating for the one undocumented parameter.

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 tool's function: 'Save the current draft ('active') of an integration flow as a new version' with an optional comment. It uses a specific verb ('save') and resource ('integration flow draft'), and distinguishes this from siblings like 'deploy_artifact' or 'create_integration_flow'.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'current draft' and requires 'ALLOW_WRITE', but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., when to version vs. deploy). The context is clear enough for basic use, but an agent might need more guidance on when to choose this tool over others.

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