update_decision_flow

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive and idempotent; the description adds the crucial behavioral detail that the entire flow is replaced, not partially patched. This goes beyond what readOnlyHint/destructiveHint alone communicate.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first states purpose, the second delivers the critical usage warning. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 annotations, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the one non-obvious destructive behavior. It could optionally reference lock_decision_flow_revision or how to fetch existing steps, but this is not necessary for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-level guidance for rule_set_steps by requiring all steps (existing + new) and explaining the full-replacement semantics, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a specific resource ('existing SAS Intelligent Decisioning flow'), and the word 'existing' clearly distinguishes it from creation tools. The full-replacement warning further sharpens the tool's scope.

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 clearly conveys that this tool updates an existing flow and must be given all rule set steps because the update is a full replacement. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create_decision_flow, but the 'existing' phrasing and full-replacement caveat provide clear contextual guidance.

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