Create Decision Flow

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

Annotations provide only negative hints (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description carries the burden of behavioral context. It discloses that a resource is created and that it chains rule set steps, but it omits side effects, whether the flow is created in a draft state, and what happens on validation failure. This is minimal beyond the annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It loses one point because 'chaining rule set steps' is grammatically awkward and could be clearer, but it remains appropriately concise.

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?

The parameter schema is complete, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be documented. However, the description alone gives no usage context or prerequisites; the tool is usable only because the schema carries the detail. This is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, yielding the baseline score of 3.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Create a new SAS Intelligent Decisioning flow.' It also identifies the defining behavior, 'chaining rule set steps,' which distinguishes this creation tool from related siblings like update_decision_flow, list_decision_flows, and create_business_ruleset.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus update_decision_flow or list_decision_flows. The phrase 'Create a new' implies it is for new flows only, but no alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are stated.

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