Создать или сохранить сценарий

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses important behaviors: the graph must be sent entirely, a new revision is only created if the graph actually changed, and saving does not publish the flow. This adds significant context about side effects and prerequisites.

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 concise, consisting of a few tight sentences that are front-loaded with the core behavior. Every sentence provides unique value, and the warning about sending the full graph is critical. No wasted words.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no nested object schema, the description covers all critical operational aspects: creation vs overwrite, full graph requirement, revision behavior, and the relationship to publishing. It also mentions flows_get and flows_publish as complementary tools, making the tool's role in the workflow clear.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for 'flow' (create vs overwrite), 'template' (only used when creating and without nodes), and the requirement to send the entire graph. This exceeds baseline by clarifying conditional parameter interactions.

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 tool's dual purpose: creating a new flow without 'flow' and overwriting an existing one with 'flow'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like flows_get and flows_publish, making the resource and verb unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: when no 'flow' param is provided it creates, with 'flow' it overwrites. It also tells users to read via flows_get before modifying, and directs activation to flows_publish, providing clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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