create_flow

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the destructiveHint annotation: the tool is disabled unless ENABLE_WRITE_OPS=true, it uses an unofficial Microsoft endpoint that may change, and it returns the created flow. It does not contradict the destructiveHint annotation.

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 organized: purpose first, then parameter summary, then usage tips, then a caveat about the unofficial endpoint. Though the parameter line duplicates schema details, it's useful for quick reference and the entire description stays under 150 words.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return value ('Returns the created flow'). It also covers the disabled-by-default behavior, the unofficial nature of the API, and provides practical authoring guidance. For a complex create operation with 5 parameters, this is highly 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?

The input schema already documents all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description only needs to add extra meaning. It adds guidance that the definition JSON includes $schema/triggers/actions, and explicitly warns that authoring a valid definition is non-trivial, recommending get_flow as a template. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 'Create a new cloud flow from a workflow definition', using the specific verb 'create' and the resource 'cloud flow'. It also identifies the HTTP operation (POST .../flows), distinguishing creation from sibling tools like update_flow or delete_flow.

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 provides clear usage context: creating flows requires a workflow definition, and suggests using get_flow on an existing flow as a template for authoring a valid definition. It also notes connection-dependent actions need matching connectionReferences, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives for updating/deleting.

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