build_cloud_flow

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description adds valuable behavior: it streams real-time progress, returns the created flow's ID, the builder's answer, and the build steps that ran. This goes beyond the annotation flags and helps the agent set expectations about the tool's side effects and result format.

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 three sentences, front-loads the trigger condition, and includes the key usage distinction and output summary. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers return values and the streaming behavior. It omits only minor details such as the exact meaning of 'builder's answer' and how streaming is delivered, but the core information an agent needs to call this tool correctly is present.

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 the schema already documents both `question` and `conversationId` clearly. The description adds general context about the natural-language build process and return values but does not materially deepen parameter-level understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states a specific action ('build a brand-new CloudFlow automation from scratch') and specifies the output: the new flow's ID, the builder's answer, and the build steps. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tool refine_cloudflow, making its scope unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('when the user wants to build a brand-new CloudFlow automation from scratch using natural language') and when not to, naming the alternative: 'Use refine_cloudflow to change an existing flow; use this only to create a new one.' This gives clear selection guidance.

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