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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with concrete behavioral detail: it stops answering new messages immediately, retains all steps, is fully reversible via flows_publish, and is always permitted. This adds real value beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about what the call returns or any rate limits.

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-loads the core action, then layers reversibility, permission posture, and usage guidance in short sentences. Each sentence carries information, though the closing clause about there being no delete tool is slightly tangential for a description.

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 single-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers state effects, reversibility, and permission posture, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly. No material gap remains.

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?

Only one parameter, flowId, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description implies which flow is being acted on but adds no format or lookup guidance beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Switches a DM flow off') and immediately differentiates itself from siblings by naming flows_publish as the reverse operation and noting no delete tool exists. An agent can distinguish this from flows_update or flows_publish without opening any 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when someone asks to stop, disable or remove a flow'), names the tool that undoes it (flows_publish), and states the exclusion that no deletion tool exists. Both the when and the alternatives are spelled out.

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