Создать или сохранить сценарий

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

It discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the graph must be sent in full, a new revision is created only if the graph actually changed, templates with AI nodes require provider and knowledge_base, and a missing knowledge_base causes empty replies. Annotations are limited to high-level hints, so this description carries and fulfills the behavioral burden well.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core behavior, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct operational constraint or pointer. There is no filler, and the capital emphasis on ЦЕЛИКОМ effectively highlights the most critical requirement.

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 12-parameter write tool, the description covers the most decision-critical details: create vs overwrite, full-graph editing flow, template requirements, and the distinction from publishing. It does not describe the return value or response format, and a few optional parameters like `copy_of` are left to the schema, but the schema is detailed enough to compensate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the create-vs-overwrite behavior of `flow`, the whole-graph requirement for `nodes`/`edges`, and the conditional relevance of `provider` and `knowledge_base` for templates. It does not cover every parameter, but the schema already does so thoroughly.

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 immediately states the tool's dual purpose: without `flow` it creates a scenario from a template or graph, and with `flow` it overwrites an existing scenario. The verb+resource combination clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like flows_get, flows_publish, and flows_delete.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use flows_get before saving (to edit a single node) and explicitly states that saving does not publish a scenario, pointing to flows_publish as the alternative. This is direct when/when-not guidance relative to sibling tools.

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