conduyt_validate_call_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does reasonably: it discloses non-mutating behavior (does not publish), and characterizes the return as structured problems with concrete examples (unreachable nodes, missing targets). It stops short of permissions, preconditions for the draft state, or whether validation is purely static.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the critical non-publishing constraint, followed by the return characterization. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive validation tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and anticipate the shape of the result. Minor gap: nothing about what happens on a valid flow (empty problem list?) or error behavior.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Call flow UUID"), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the id — e.g., whether it must reference a draft or accept a published flow.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Validate a call flow's draft graph") and explicitly scopes it as validation-only by contrasting with publishing. An agent can immediately distinguish this from the sibling conduyt_publish_call_flow without opening a schema.

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?

The "WITHOUT publishing" clause implies the intended context: check a draft before going live. However, it never names the natural alternatives (conduyt_simulate_call_flow, conduyt_publish_call_flow) or states exclusions, so routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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