conduyt_update_call_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses draft-only mutation, unchanged published behavior, the API 428 requirement for expectedDraftRevision, 409 concurrency semantics, and the graph-specific nature of the token. These are exactly the non-obvious operational traits an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the draft scope and followed by the critical concurrency constraint. Every clause adds operational value and there is no filler.

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?

For a complex nested mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key draft/publish and concurrency behavior thoroughly. It does not describe the response shape or whether a new draftRevision is returned, which is a minor gap for an update tool but not enough to prevent correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by explaining why expectedDraftRevision exists, how missing and stale values manifest as 428/409, and why the token is not invalidated by live calls or publish. It does not add much beyond the schema for name, phoneNumber, or the graph structure, so it sits just above baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource (update a call flow), narrows the scope to the DRAFT, and lists the mutable facets (name, number, graph). It also explicitly distinguishes draft updates from published behavior, which separates it from publish_call_flow and related siblings.

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?

It clearly establishes the context of use: changing draft state before a publish, with published behavior unaffected until the next publish. It does not explicitly route the agent to sibling tools such as validate_call_flow or publish_call_flow, but the draft/publish distinction gives strong practical guidance.

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