Save Flow

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds the intent (saving for later replay) but does not disclose details like overwriting behavior on duplicate names or what the function returns. Given the annotation, a score of 3 is appropriate – it adds some context but not deep behavioral specifics.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key use-case link. There is zero fluff, and every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the destructive hint, the description is nearly complete. It could mention overwrite behavior or return values, but the core purpose and usage are clear, so it is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% with minimal descriptions for both parameters ('flow name' and 'step array'). The tool description restates the concept of a step sequence but adds no new detail about step format or constraints. Since the schema covers the parameters, baseline 3 is correct.

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 the specific action 'save' and the resource 'flow', and explains that it stores a step sequence under a name. It also explicitly connects to the sibling run_flow, making the distinction clear: save now, replay later with run_flow.

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?

It gives a clear usage context by mentioning the future replay with run_flow, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use it (e.g., for listing flows), but the context is sufficient for basic routing.

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