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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the operation is non-destructive, requires typed user confirmation, is reversible for at least 30 days, and rejects flows in the publishing state. This is far beyond a typical delete description.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: core behavior, trigger phrases, identification strategy, safety guarantee, reversibility, and a state-based rejection condition. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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 the essential selection and invocation context very well. The only gaps are the vague '<page_context> entity' reference and lack of detail about what happens on success or when the flow is not found.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies that flowName is sufficient and explicitly instructs the agent not to look up the id first. However, it does not explain the role of flowId or how the page_context entity maps to the schema, leaving minor ambiguity.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Soft-archive a flow (status='archived')'. It clearly distinguishes this from destructive deletes by explicitly stating 'The call destroys nothing', and natural-language examples like 'delete this flow' help an agent recognize the intent.

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?

It gives explicit invocation guidance: identify by flowName or page_context entity, never look up the id first, and use update_flow status='draft' to reverse the archive. It also states a rejection condition ('Rejects flows in 'publishing' state'), which is directly actionable.

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