Copy Flow (Flow Designer)

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the copied flow lands in draft/unpublished state, gets a new sys_id, is independent of the source, returns the new sys_id, and prints the exact 'now-sdk transform' command. This adds substantial context that annotations alone do not provide, with no contradiction.

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 well-structured: it opens with the core action, then explains the rationale, lifecycle, behavior, and a practical tip. Every sentence provides value—no filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value (sys_id and command), the state of the copied flow, the requirement for a scope sys_id, and an alternative way to find it. It also embeds the tool within the broader lifecycle, making it fully self-contained.

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 already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description reinforces important nuances (e.g., target_scope must be a sys_id, source can be OOB) but does not add significantly beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Copy an existing ServiceNow Flow Designer flow') with a clear resource and target ('into a target scoped application'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by framing it as the best-practice first step for modifying flows, which is unique among the flow-related tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'best-practice first step when you want to modify any flow', and explains why (OOB/shared flows should not be modified directly). Provides a lifecycle (copy_flow → pull → modify → push → test_flow → publish_flow) and directs users to list_scoped_apps for target_scope, giving clear usage context.

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