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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavior: turning on asks the user first, while turning off runs immediately and cancels scheduled runs. It also explains that the published version is what runs and points never-published workflows to workflow.publish. These details materially help the agent predict side effects, especially the cancellation behavior consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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 are front-loaded: purpose first, behavioral asymmetry second, and the never-published edge case third. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral details: confirmation asymmetry, immediate cancellation on off, published-version semantics, and the never-published alternative. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears missing.

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 schema documents isActive fully, including the user-confirmation behavior, and the description reinforces that same meaning. workflowId is only implied by context and its UUID format, with no additional semantic detail in the description. With 50% schema description coverage, the description does not add much beyond the schema for the undocumented parameter.

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 verb and resource: turn a published workflow on or off. It also distinguishes the edge case from the sibling workflow.publish by stating that a never-published workflow is turned on with workflow.publish. An agent can identify the action and scope without opening the schema.

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 gives clear usage context: operate on a published workflow, and use workflow.publish when the workflow has never been published. It does not explicitly address when to use this versus workflow.unpublish for turning off, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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