Update Decision Flow

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

Annotations already signal destructive and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the crucial detail that the full flow is replaced and this is not a partial patch, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations. It does not cover prerequisites such as locking, but the core replace-vs-patch behavior is disclosed.

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 sentences with no filler. The essential warning about full replacement is front-loaded and immediately informs the caller's main risk when invoking the tool.

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 5-parameter update tool with an output schema and informative annotations, the description covers the most important operational concern: full replacement. It does not mention prerequisites like locking or fetching current steps, but the description is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly and avoid the primary mistake.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that rule_set_steps must include both existing and new steps, which is a critical semantic constraint not fully captured by the schema's reference to create_decision_flow for shape.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing SAS Intelligent Decisioning flow.' It adds the key replacement semantics, which clearly separates it from create_decision_flow, get_decision_flow, and delete_decision_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?

The description explicitly tells callers to pass ALL rule set steps because the update replaces the whole flow rather than patching it. This is actionable when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but 'existing' versus 'new' implies the create/update distinction.

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