prufa_edit_flow

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that editing returns the flow to DRAFT state, and that the operation is idempotent. Does not detail auth needs, rate limits, or error handling, but covers major 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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence defines action and required parameters. Second sentence provides critical behavioral note. 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?

Lacks description of return value or error conditions, which is important for a state-changing tool with no output schema. However, covers key behavioral context (draft state, idempotency key) and sibling differentiation. Somewhat complete but missing return info.

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% (flow_id lacks schema description). Description adds context for flow_id (implied by 'Pass flow_id') and reinforces spec's role as 'full replacement spec'. Idempotency_key is well-described in schema; description adds no new semantics. Baseline 3 due to coverage, with marginal added value.

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 verb 'Replace' and resource 'flow's spec'. It explicitly lists required parameters (flow_id, spec) and distinguishes from siblings like prufa_create_flow and prufa_confirm_flow by focusing on replacement.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: any edit returns to DRAFT and requires calling prufa_confirm_flow again. Mentions idempotent behavior. Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the note is strong guidance.

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