patch_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the internal process ('Fetches the current flow, applies operations, and updates it') and lists supported operation types with examples, as well as the return type. This goes beyond a simple 'update' but omits details about error handling, atomicity, and permissions, preventing a higher score.

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 appropriately sized, with a clear opening verb, an efficiency note, and structured Args/Returns sections. The extensive operation examples are justified by the complexity. No redundant content.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, operation syntax, and return value, which is comprehensive for a 2-parameter tool. It falls short only in clarifying the string vs JSON array representation and not addressing potential errors, but overall it is complete enough for most use.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description must explain parameters. It does explain flow_id and operations, and details the operations format with examples. However, there is a mismatch: schema says operations is a string, while the description describes it as a 'JSON array', which could confuse an agent. Thus, the compensation is strong but flawed.

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 opens with 'Apply incremental patch operations to a flow', a specific verb+resource statement. It also explicitly contrasts with update_flow, noting efficiency for small changes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 states 'Much more efficient than update_flow for small changes', providing a clear comparative guideline. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use it or mention other alternatives, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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