set_flow_starting_point

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully reveals an upsert-like behavior via 'Add (or rename)', implying an existing flow with the same name is renamed rather than duplicated, and it flags the top-level-frame precondition. It does not say what happens on invalid nodes, whether it overwrites or errors on name collisions, or what is returned.

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 eleven-word sentence with zero filler, and the operation plus its key constraint are front-loaded. Every clause 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and where it applies, but leaves error/return behavior and the interaction with the sibling flow-starting-point tools unspecified. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want closed.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema (name = flow name, nodeId = top-level frame ID). The description merely restates the same semantics at a high level and adds no syntax, ID format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb ('Add (or rename)') and resource ('prototype flow starting point') with an explicit scope constraint ('on a top-level frame'). It does not name the closely related siblings get_flow_starting_points or remove_flow_starting_point, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or reference to alternatives. Usage is only implied by the parenthetical 'or rename' and the constraint that the target must be a top-level frame, which tells the agent the precondition but not how this differs from rename_node or the remove/get flow siblings.

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