prufa_create_flow

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

With no annotations, the description fully compensates by disclosing key behaviors: the flow does NOT run yet, returns a 201 draft with step spec and detected variables, and is idempotent. No contradictions.

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?

Four informative sentences with no fluff. Purpose stated first, followed by parameters, return value, and usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's complexity, lack of output schema, and siblings, the description is complete. It explains the return value, includes review instruction, and directs to confirm_flow. No missing critical information.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: explains url, test_case, name, and idempotency_key purpose. Schema coverage is 75%, but the description enriches all parameters, especially idempotency_key.

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 'compile a plain-language test case into a reviewable DRAFT flow spec', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling prufa_confirm_flow by emphasizing that this only creates a draft and does not run.

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 guidance: pass target url and test_case, optionally name. It explicitly states the next step ('review the draft, then call prufa_confirm_flow') and distinguishes from the sibling tool.

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