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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral nuance that activation does not trigger sending, which prevents a common misunderstanding. It does not elaborate on permissions or return values, but for a status toggle this is adequate.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and a critical warning. No filler or redundant information.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and one optional boolean, the description covers the core behavior and the key caveat. The absence of output schema is not a major deficit here, but it could mention edge cases like invalid flow_id.

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?

The description adds meaning to the 'paused' parameter by showing its effect, but the schema already provides that description. It does not add any explanation for 'flow_id', which remains undocumented. With 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: putting the automation into service (active) or pausing it. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool arm_flow by warning that activating does not send, which is essential for correct selection.

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 provides explicit usage guidance by naming arm_flow as the alternative for sending, effectively saying 'use this to change status, but for sending use arm_flow.' This is a clear when-not and alternative.

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