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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real consequence the annotations cannot convey: attendees lose access and in-progress runs terminate. That is exactly the kind of impact context an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by impact. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

With an output schema present, a fully documented two-parameter schema, and complete annotations, the only thing the description must supply is consequence — which it does. It stops short of noting whether the action is reversible or whether there are permission requirements, but the essentials are covered.

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% and both UUIDs are documented with their source lookup tools, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no additional meaning about flow_id or event_id, which is acceptable at the baseline.

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 ('Take a published Zuno flow back to draft'), making the state transition unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the counterpart publish_flow or archive_flow/delete_flow siblings, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

The intent is implied by the 'back to draft' framing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over archive_flow, delete_flow, or update_flow, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. flow must currently be published).

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