update_decision_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the most critical behavioral trait—the update replaces the entire flow rather than patching it—which is not evident from the tool name or schema. It also clarifies that both existing and new steps must be supplied. This is significant, though it could be enhanced by mentioning effects on published flows or required permissions.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second delivers the crucial caveat about full replacement. Every word serves a function, with no filler or repetition of schema details. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (an update operation with a fully nested array parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main pitfall (full replacement) and relies on the schema for parameter details. The reference to create_decision_flow for the rule step shape is helpful, though it is in the schema rather than the description. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool 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?

The schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds essential meaning to the rule_set_steps parameter by explaining the full-replacement semantics, which goes beyond the schema's 'Ordered list' description. This extra guidance for the most complex parameter justifies the above-baseline score.

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 updates an existing flow and highlights the critical semantic of full replacement. It distinguishes from siblings like create_decision_flow and delete_decision_flow by specifying 'existing' and emphasizing the full-flow replacement rather than a partial patch.

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 usage context: update an existing flow while passing ALL rule set steps. It implicitly distinguishes from create_decision_flow (for new flows) and explicitly warns against treating it as a partial patch. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this tool, which would earn a 5.

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