update_flow_element

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about the default merge behavior (fetching existing definition, preserving omitted fields) and the write operation (normalized complete flow tree). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and the key default behavior. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the action.

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 main behavior (merge vs replace) and the write operation. However, it does not explain the return value (no output schema) or potential error conditions. For a tool with four parameters, the description is reasonably complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal extra meaning. The 'element' parameter is described briefly, but the schema already provides detailed descriptions. No additional clarity on 'replace' or 'surveyId' beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('flow element') with a unique identifier ('FlowID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'insert_flow_element' or 'delete_flow_element' by focusing on updating an existing element.

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 when to use this tool (to update an existing flow element) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It lacks contextual guidance on prerequisites or when to set the 'replace' flag.

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