update_flow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context such as whether omitted fields are preserved or overwritten. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes nothing beyond what the structured metadata already conveys.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured, although it is very thin on substantive detail.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description leaves key context unexplained: whether data is a partial or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, and what response the agent can expect. The schema and annotations carry most of the weight, but the description is too thin to be complete.

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 schema fully documents id and data, including each updatable field. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 action and resource: 'Update an existing flow'. It is distinguishable from siblings like create_flow, delete_flow, and trigger_flow through the verb 'update' and the word 'existing', though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus create_flow, delete_flow, trigger_flow, or update_item. The description only restates the tool's basic purpose and leaves all selection decisions to inference.

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