gflow_instructions_toggle_mode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that when off, no cards apply even if individually enabled, and that cards are left untouched, which is critical for understanding the tool's effect. It also mentions 'Credits-free,' indicating no cost, which is valuable behavioral information. This exceeds what would be expected without annotations.

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, using two sentences in the first line to state the purpose and effect, followed by a single-word note on credits. Every sentence earns its place: the first sets the action, the second explains the critical behavior, and the third addresses cost. No fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, but 2 required), the description is mostly complete for understanding the tool's function and side effects. However, it lacks details on return values (though an output schema exists, it is not shown in the context), and parameter semantics are weak. For an agent to call it correctly, it might need to know the expected format of `project` or the impact of `profile`, which are not described. The output schema's presence helps but the absence of parameter details limits completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate for the schema gaps. The description provides no details about the `enabled` parameter's meaning or the `project` parameter (identifier format) or `profile`. It does not explain how the `enabled` boolean affects the master switch beyond 'on or off'. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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: toggling a project's brief master switch on or off its effect. It specifies the resource (Flow project's brief master switch) and the verb (toggle), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gflow_instructions_set_enabled (which enables individual cards) and gflow_instructions_apply (which applies instructions).

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 when to use this tool: when you want to enable or disable all cards at once without modifying them individually. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., use gflow_instructions_set_enabled for individual cards), but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case.

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