conduyt_update_call_flow_function

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the admin requirement and that the secret operation is a rotation, but it does not state whether this is a partial patch (can one field be sent alone?), whether URL/secret changes take effect immediately on live call flows, or whether rotation invalidates the old secret.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the three mutation modes and the admin constraint with no filler. Every clause maps to a parameter or a permission fact.

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 4-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers field intent and the admin gate but leaves out partial-update semantics and the effect on live endpoints. Those are the details an agent most needs before calling it, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 50% — only 'id' and 'secret' have descriptions — but the description compensates by mapping the three mutation targets to their fields (rename→name, change URL→url, rotate→secret) and clarifying that the secret is a signing-secret rotation, which the schema barely implies. Only 'id' remains unpacked beyond the schema, which already covers it.

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 names specific operations (rename, change URL, rotate secret) against a specific resource (a call-flow function endpoint), so the agent immediately knows this is the mutation counterpart to list/create/delete/test call-flow function. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to route away from, but the update verb plus field list is sufficient to separate it.

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?

"Update" plus the '(admin)' marker implies when it applies and who may call it, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, alternatives (e.g., creating vs editing a function), or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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