flow_update

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

The description only implies mutation ('Modify') but does not disclose what aspects are modifiable, whether changes are reversible, side effects on other operations, or any requirements (e.g., authentication). With no annotations, the description fails to provide necessary behavioral context.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but sacrifices completeness for brevity. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource but lacks critical details for a tool with many parameters.

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 14 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and a laconic description, the tool definition is incomplete. The output schema exists but is not shown, so the agent lacks information on return values. The description does not cover 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the 14 parameters. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (e.g., 'Request Method'), the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema structure.

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 'Modify' and the resource 'a captured request/response and its metadata', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like flow_create (create), flow_delete (delete), and flow_get (get).

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 provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., flow_create for new flows, flow_replay for replaying). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context for usage.

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