prufa_confirm_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: confirms the flow, makes it runnable, idempotent, and optionally accepts a corrected spec. It does not cover error cases or what happens if the flow is already confirmed, but it is sufficient for safe usage.

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?

Two efficient sentences. The first states the purpose and a key constraint; the second covers required input, optional override, and idempotency. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers inputs and outcome, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or what the response looks like. Since no output schema exists, this is a gap, though the schema covers parameter details.

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 67% (2/3 parameters described). The description adds value beyond the schema for the 'spec' parameter, explaining its optional overriding behavior. However, it does not add detail for flow_id or idempotency_key beyond what the schema provides.

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 confirms a draft flow to make it runnable, using the specific verb 'Confirm'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like prufa_edit_flow (which edits drafts) and prufa_run_flow (which runs confirmed flows) by specifying the state transition.

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 provides clear context: confirm a draft flow to make it runnable. It implicitly indicates when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like prufa_edit_flow for editing the draft first.

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