prufa_set_flow_credentials

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses write-only behavior ('values are never returned'), idempotency, and response format (lists only names). Covers all essential behavioral traits without contradiction.

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?

Only three sentences, each adding value: first states purpose, second explains how to use (required params), third describes response and idempotency. Front-loaded with key information, no redundancy.

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 has 3 parameters (one nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what to pass, behavioral traits (write-only, idempotent), and response content. No gaps remain for an agent to misinterpret.

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 covers 67% (credentials and idempotency have descriptions). Description adds context: flow_id is identified as a required identifier; credentials map to 'the spec's {{VARIABLES}}', linking to flow spec variables. This supplements the schema's sparse flow_id description.

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?

Clearly specifies 'Store reusable, WRITE-ONLY credentials for a flow', indicating the verb (store) and resource (credentials for a flow). Distinguishes from sibling tools like prufa_create_flow, prufa_edit_flow, prufa_run_flow by highlighting the credential storage purpose.

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 context: credentials are stored for later runs to avoid resending them. Implicitly suggests using this when you have credentials to reuse, but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use. The idempotency mention offers guidance on safe retries.

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