gflow_instructions_set_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does note 'Credits-free', which is a useful disclosure, and implies a mutation (enable/disable). However, it omits side effects, error handling (e.g., what if no card matches or both title and card_id are given), and permission requirements. This is a mutation tool, so more transparency is expected.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and key constraint (exactly one). No filler or repetition; it earns its place.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what happens if both title and card_id are provided, how to locate a card (e.g., via list tool), or any failure modes. The output schema exists, so return format need not be detailed, but the ambiguous selection semantics and missing parameter context leave the agent uncertain about correct invocation.

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 clarifies that title and card_id are alternative selection methods and that exactly one is used, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not address profile or project parameters, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates. The 'exactly one' wording may also conflict with the schema, which does not require either field.

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 action: enable or disable one instruction card on a Flow project's brief. It specifies the resource (instruction card), the operation (enable/disable), and the selection method (by title or card id, exactly one). This distinguishes it from siblings like add, rm, and toggle_mode, which have different purposes.

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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives like toggle_mode (which might flip state) or clarify when setting an explicit enabled value is preferable. The phrase 'exactly one' gives selection constraints but no situational advice.

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