tentra

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation tool ('Create a step-by-step flow'), implying mutation, but doesn't address permissions needed, whether flows are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is perfectly concise with just two sentences. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose and scope, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral details, parameter explanations beyond schema, and output information. For a creation tool with complex nested parameters, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 50%, so the description needs to compensate but doesn't. It mentions 'existing architecture' which relates to 'architectureId', and 'step-by-step flow' which relates to 'flow' with 'steps', but adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema. With moderate schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a step-by-step flow on an existing architecture' with specific examples of what flows visualize (request paths, data pipelines, business processes). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_architecture' by focusing on flows rather than architectures, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use: 'Use when the user asks to describe, trace, or explain a flow through the system.' This gives practical guidance, though it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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