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

Annotations already cover the mutation/destructive profile, so the description earns credit for going further: it explains that archiving hides the flow from the default gallery while leaving it runnable, scheduled, and shared, that archived:false restores, and that the call may return `needs_confirmation`. These are real behavioral facts an agent needs that the schema does not spell out.

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 operation and its scope, then the exclusion, then partial-update rule, then the archive semantics. Every sentence carries information and none is redundant with the schema.

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 metadata-mutation tool with no output schema this is complete: it covers scope, exclusion, update semantics, the destructive-ish archive behavior, and even the confirmation round-trip. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema lacks — the whole-set partial-update contract ('Pass only what changes') and the restore semantics of archived:false. This is useful framing beyond the field-level descriptions.

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 (changes) and resource (flow metadata: name, description, visibility, tags, archived state) and explicitly scopes out what it does NOT do — orchestration changes route to workbench_flows_edit_text. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling edit tool without opening a 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?

Names the alternative (workbench_flows_edit_text) with the condition that selects it (prompts/nodes = orchestration) and gives the partial-update rule 'Pass only what changes.' No explicit when-NOT beyond the orchestration split, but routing guidance is clear and actionable.

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