prufa_run_flow

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

Discloses key behaviors: returns 202 accepted, idempotent with key, credentials encrypted/not stored, fails on draft. No annotation given, so description carries burden. Missing details on side effects like credit consumption or rate limits, but overall adequate.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with main action, then returns, then credential details, then condition and idempotency. No superfluous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 3 params, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, return value, follow-up, credential handling, idempotency, and failure case. Lacks error response details but acceptable for a run tool returning 202.

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 of 3 params described). Description adds meaning: explains credentials object structure with example, clarifies idempotency key effect. Flow_id lacks description but is self-evident. Compensates for schema gaps effectively.

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 action ('Execute a CONFIRMED flow') and specifies the resource (flow). It distinguishes from siblings like prufa_confirm_flow and prufa_get_report by mentioning prerequisites and follow-up endpoint.

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 guidance on when to use: only for confirmed flows, with note to confirm drafts first. Mentions alternatives for storing credentials (prufa_set_flow_credentials). Lacks explicit comparison with other run tools (prufa_run_audit, etc.) but sufficiently covers common usage.

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