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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses rejection conditions (server status INVALID or a false saved validation), the destructive side effects of switchover (old version stops taking runs, finishes in-flight runs, schedule dropped), and the activation effects of a start. The only gap is auth/permission requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action, then failure handling, then the switchover caveat—good ordering. The dense parenthetical phrasing ('withSwitchover: true when...') and a single long paragraph cost it a point but every sentence carries information.

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 activation effects, failure modes, and switchover semantics. It does not state what the call returns or how to confirm the new LIVE state, which would round it out.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains withSwitchover (when to set it and what it does), but versionId and workspaceId are only inferable from their names with no format, sourcing, or precedence guidance.

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 and resource with precise state semantics: 'Make a saved flow version LIVE: its triggers start and its schedule takes effect. Also resumes a PAUSED version.' An agent can distinguish this from pause_flow/stop_flow without consulting schemas.

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?

Gives explicit conditions: use when promoting a version to LIVE or resuming a PAUSED one, and use withSwitchover when another version is already LIVE (the call otherwise fails). It also names the recovery path for invalid flows (get_flow_summary, apply_operations, retry), leaving nothing to inference.

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