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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the manage-access authorization requirement and clarifies that toggling state does not trigger execution, both of which are behavioral facts not visible in the annotations or schema.

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 action, followed by prerequisite and the key non-behavior. No filler or repetition of the name.

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 two-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action, access requirement, and a critical behavioral caveat. It omits what the tool returns or how it affects in-flight runs, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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% and the two parameters (workflow_id, enabled) are undocumented in the schema. The description implies the boolean toggle via 'enable or disable' and constrains workflow_id to published workflows, but does not explain identifier format or failure behavior, so it only partially compensates.

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 (enable/disable) and the resource (published workflow), which distinguishes it from start_workflow and publish_workflow. It does not explicitly reference a sibling, but the 'published workflow' scope is precise enough to identify the target object.

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?

'Requires manage access' gives a prerequisite and 'Does not start a run' rules out the most likely confusion with start_workflow. It stops short of naming the alternative explicitly, but the exclusion provides clear context for when this tool is and isn't appropriate.

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