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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: what persists after the call (versions and collected answers), that the action is irreversible, and that a replacement must be created as a new draft. This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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, zero filler, with the core action and its consequence front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: precondition, irreversibility, and retained data. It could be slightly stronger by pointing to the delete counterpart for cases where removal (not deprecation) is intended.

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% for the single flow_id parameter, so the burden falls on the description. It adds one meaningful constraint ('Only a published flow can be deprecated') but never explains the identifier's format or where to obtain it, so compensation for the coverage gap is only partial.

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 ('Deprecate a published WhatsApp Flow') and immediately defines the effect. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_whatsapp_flow by noting that versions and existing customer answers are retained, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Provides a clear precondition ('Only a published flow can be deprecated') and the irreversibility outcome. It stops short of naming the alternative action (delete_whatsapp_flow) or the exact scenario that should select deprecation over deletion, so it is not a full when/when-not routing statement.

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