Change a Homey flow

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

Beyond the annotations, it reveals key behaviors: it reads the current flow and returns it for rollback, replaces arrays wholesale, and prevents enabling an off flow without confirmEnable. It also explains the safety rationale for that step. No contradiction with the annotations was found.

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 dense but not bloated; the first sentence is action-focused and each following sentence explains an important behavioral guardrail. A few sentences are long and combine different concerns, but the content is still relevant and the structure remains readable.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately discloses that the previous flow version is returned in the result, enabling rollback. It also covers ownership confirmation, enabling semantics, and partial updates, making it sufficiently complete for a complex 8-parameter mutation 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 schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly, so the baseline is high; the description adds useful cross-cutting semantics by explaining partial-update behavior and the difference between omitting a field and sending an array. This meaningfully augments the schema rather than merely repeating it.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Replaces the trigger, conditions and actions of an existing standard flow.' This clearly identifies the resource, the operation, and the scope, and distinguishes the tool from create, delete, and advanced-flow siblings.

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 gives practical usage guidance: untouched flow values are preserved, arrays sent replace the old ones, and the confirm/confirmEnable requirements are explained. It does not explicitly list alternative tools and when to prefer them, but the phrase 'existing standard flow' implicitly sets the boundary against advanced-flow and creation tools.

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