flow_use_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'open' and 'fill configuration parameters' but does not explain whether this executes the tool, requires a connection, or affects project state. The presence of campaign and project_name parameters suggests side effects, but they are not explained, making the behavior unclear.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the core function and optional parameter filling. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, earning the highest score for conciseness.

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 tool has four parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain the tool-opening flow, how project matching works, and what the user can expect as a result. None of this is present, leaving significant gaps for the agent. The description is too minimal for the complexity of the tool.

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 input schema documents all four parameters with a high coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning by clarifying that 'params' are configuration parameters and 'tool_name' is the tool's name, but it does not elaborate on campaign or project_name behavior. The schema already covers the basics, so the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 that this tool opens any tool by name in Google Flow and optionally fills configuration parameters. This distinguishes it from siblings like flow_generate_image or flow_use_grid_architect, which are specific tool actions. The verb 'open' is slightly ambiguous (whether it executes or navigates), but the overall purpose is clear.

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 phrase 'any tool by name' implies a generic fallback, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus dedicated siblings. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the usage context only implied.

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