update_flow

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

Discloses key behavioral traits beyond the destructiveHint annotation: the PATCH partial-update semantics ('only the fields you pass'), the requirement to pass the full workflow definition for logic edits, and the critical caveat that the API is unofficial, unsupported by Microsoft, and behavior may change. This is rich, valuable context.

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?

Four compact sentences, each serving a purpose: operation + endpoint, parameter overview, safety workflow, and unsupported API warning. The parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema but provides a quick summary. No fluff, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the core operation, partial update behavior, safe modification workflow, and the unsupported/unofficial nature of the API. It is fully contextual for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that the definition expects the full workflow JSON and advising to pass the whole definition back after modifying the get_flow output. It also clarifies the optional environment default and partial-update semantics, which are not explicitly in 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?

Description clearly states 'Update an existing flow's properties' with the specific PATCH endpoint and method (PATCH .../flows/{flow}), making it distinct from siblings like create_flow, delete_flow, enable_flow, etc. The verb-resource relationship is explicit.

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?

Provides clear guidance for safe use: 'To edit logic safely: get_flow first, modify the returned definition, then pass the whole definition back here.' Also notes the disabled flag (ENABLE_WRITE_OPS=true). However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use update_flow vs enable_flow/disable_flow for state changes, though sibling names imply the distinction.

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