create_prediction_with_files

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, permissions, or operational traits, but it only says 'Run'. The tool name suggests it creates a prediction, yet the description does not reveal whether this is a mutating operation, what happens to uploaded files, or any required auth/rate limits. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. It is appropriately concise with no redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested upload object, no output schema) and absence of annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not mention expected return behavior, error scenarios, or prerequisite conditions like base64 encoding of file data. The description leaves too much for the agent to infer without additional guidance.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'file attachments' adds a small element of clarity regarding the 'uploads' parameter but provides no additional meaning for chatflowId, question, chatId, or overrideConfig.

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 ('Run') and resource ('Flowise chatflow'), and the phrase 'with file attachments' distinctly separates it from sibling tools like create_prediction. It is specific and understandable.

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 implies the tool is for use when file attachments are required, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over create_prediction_with_history or create_prediction_with_lead, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria. No alternatives are named.

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