Enable/Disable Flow

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

Annotations already indicate a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by stating that disabled flows won't trigger, which clarifies the real-world effect of the operation. It does not fully detail error conditions or return values, but for this simple setter, the added context is sufficient.

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 two sentences long, with every sentence contributing meaning: the first states core functionality, the second provides a key behavioral consequence and a practical reference to list_flows. There is no redundancy or 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 tool with only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the behavioral effect, and how to obtain the required ID. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool without additional ambiguity.

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 100% with 'id' described as 'Flow ID' and 'enabled' as 'true to enable, false to disable'. The description adds value by telling users to use list_flows to find the flow ID, and the phrase 'Enable or disable a flow automation' reinforces the enabled parameter's semantics. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 with a specific verb ('Enable or disable') and resource ('flow automation'), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_flows and trigger_flow by focusing on the enabled state. It also adds a clarifying consequence ('Disabled flows won't trigger') that reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly directs users to list_flows to find the flow ID, covering the prerequisite. It implies the use case (enabling/disabling a flow) but does not explicitly name alternatives like trigger_flow for manual execution. The context is clear and practical, but lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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