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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing that the tool cannot arm but can disarm via armed:false. It also scopes exactly which parts of the automation are editable. It doesn't cover permissions or return values, but the provided constraints are meaningful and prevent misuse.

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 compact sentences deliver the core purpose and a critical exclusion/alternative. The information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place with no fluff.

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 is sufficient for a 6-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema: it covers main editable fields, disarming semantics, and sibling differentiation. It lacks explicit mention of partial-update behavior (whether omitted fields are unchanged) or return format, but these are not essential for basic invocation.

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 low (33%), so the description compensates by mapping human-readable concepts to parameters: 'nombre' (name), 'disparador' (trigger_config), 'pasos (graph)' (graph), and 'estado' (status). It also clarifies the armed semantic. Only flow_id is not spelled out, but it is required and self-evident.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edita') and names the exact resource (una automatización) and fields (nombre, disparador, pasos, estado). It also explicitly differentiates from arm_flow by stating this tool is not for arming and can only disarm, eliminating ambiguity.

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 provides clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance: use for editing and disarming, not for arming. It names the alternative tool (arm_flow) and mentions its confirmation requirement, which helps the agent choose correctly among siblings.

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