create-stl-flow

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

The description discloses that this is a write operation via POST and specifies the required stl:write scope, which is useful beyond the schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not describe side effects beyond creation, return value, or error behaviors.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that provides the action, resource, HTTP method, and required scope with no filler. Every clause adds useful information.

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 five parameters, a nested object templateJson, three required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It gives the endpoint and scope but leaves the agent unable to construct a valid request body without additional external knowledge.

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 provides no parameter-level explanation. The agent receives no guidance on what templateJson should contain, how customerIntegrationId is obtained, what receivingPhone format is expected, or how status behaves. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action and resource — 'Create a Speed to Lead flow' — and expands the STL acronym. The POST /api/public/stl/flows endpoint marks this as the creation operation, distinguishing it from siblings like get-stl-flow, update-stl-flow, and list-stl-flows.

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 create verb and STL flow resource clearly imply this is for creating a new flow rather than updating or listing one, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It relies on the agent to infer the boundary against sibling tools.

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