turn_off_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Disable flow' only restates the action and provides no information about side effects, reversibility, impact on runs, required state, or error behavior.

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 concise and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than well-structured. Two words do not provide enough substance to compensate for the missing annotations and schema descriptions.

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 mutating flow-state tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It lacks prerequisites, effects, return value, and error conditions, though the core operation is at least identifiable.

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 does not mention flowId, and schema description coverage is 0%. The property name 'flowId' is self-explanatory and there is only one parameter, but nothing clarifies requiredness, format, or how the ID should be obtained.

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 gives a specific verb ('Disable') and resource ('flow'), making the core operation unambiguous. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like update_flow or turn_on_flow.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_flow, validate_flow, or turn_on_flow. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion cases mentioned.

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