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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: that enabling makes the workflow live against real triggers, that a specific account permission is required, and that user confirmation should be sought. It stops short of saying whether deactivating halts in-flight executions.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect, with no filler. The line-broken formatting is slightly awkward but costs nothing.

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 two-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers the action, its side effect, the permission prerequisite, and the consent requirement — everything an agent needs to call it safely. Return value detail is unnecessary here.

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%, so the description must carry the load. The 'on ... or off' phrasing implicitly documents the boolean `active` parameter's semantics, but `workflow_id` is never mentioned and no format or scope detail is added.

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 pair and resource ('Turn a workflow on ... or off') and explains the real-world effect of turning it on ('starts reacting to its trigger for real'). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like save_workflow or delete_workflow, though it never names them.

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?

Gives a prerequisite (the Gydmation setting must be enabled) and a consent rule ('Ask the user first'), which is useful usage context. However, it never says when to deactivate vs delete, or what to do if the setting is absent, so the when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance is only implied.

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