enable-flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool sets state to 'Started' and enables triggers, but does not mention idempotency, permissions, side effects, or behavior when the flow is already enabled. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the essential information with no redundancy or extraneous text. Every word contributes meaning.

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 enable action with no output schema, the description adequately covers the primary behavior. It lacks details about error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., flow must exist), or state transitions when the flow is already enabled, but these are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Enable (start)') and the resource ('a flow'), and explains the effect ('so its triggers fire. Sets state to Started'). This differentiates it from the sibling 'disable-flow' tool, which has an opposite 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 implies usage when wanting to start a flow, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disable-flow' or 'run-flow'. No when-not-to-use criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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