unfour.flow.save

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/idempotency profile is covered. The description usefully adds that validation runs and that updates enforce a current-revision check (optimistic concurrency), but it omits what happens on a stale revision or validation failure. Adds context beyond annotations without being rich.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the create/update behavior is front-loaded right after the purpose statement. Sized appropriately for a definition whose nested schema is large.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description states the validation and revision invariants. But it leaves workspaceId behavior, error handling on stale revisions, and permission needs unaddressed, which is thin for a mutation tool with a large nested input schema.

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 0%, and the description covers only the nested id and revision fields (empty id = create, revision must be current), leaving the top-level workspaceId and the bulk of the definition structure undocumented. The id/revision semantics are genuinely useful beyond the raw schema, but coverage of the actual two parameters is incomplete.

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 specific verb (Save) and resource (FlowDefinition) and adds the create-vs-update semantics, which clearly marks it as the write counterpart to flow.get, flow.delete, and flow.run. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the save semantics distinguish it adequately.

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?

"Empty id creates; updates require the current revision" gives a concrete usage condition and the precondition for the update path, which is more than nothing. However, it never contrasts with alternatives such as flow.run or flow.get, nor states when not to use it, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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