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

Annotations already indicate mutation and destructiveness, but the description adds meaningful context: the operation performs a live API call, persists state back to the store, and returns the updated stored record. The deprecation flag is also valuable behavioral information.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most decision-relevant facts: plan requirement, deprecation, and preferred alternative. Every sentence earns its place, and the replacement guidance is clear.

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?

The description covers the action, alternative, prerequisite, and return value, which is sufficient for a simple 3-parameter tool. It does not describe error cases or side effects beyond what annotations imply, but these are not critical gaps 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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 states a specific action ('Start or stop a Power Automate flow'), names the resource, and explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling by directing users to 'Use set_live_flow_state instead.' The deprecation notice adds important purpose-related context.

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 description clearly recommends set_live_flow_state as the replacement, signaling that this tool should generally be avoided. It also notes the Pro+ plan prerequisite, giving the agent explicit preconditions for use.

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