set_flow_state

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

The description explicitly discloses the critical behavioral gate: it previews by default and only actually mutates state when confirm:true is passed. Given annotations readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, this adds the key safety-relevant context an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the primary action is front-loaded, followed by the essential preview/confirm caveat. Every word 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?

The description is sufficient for a simple four-parameter tool: it states the operation, the states, and the confirmation mechanism. It does not describe what the preview output looks like, but since there is no output schema this is a partial gap rather than a serious omission.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters, including the meaning of confirm and the start/stop enum. The description adds no new parameter-level information; it merely restates the behavior already captured in the schema.

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 names the action ('Turn a flow on/off'), the resource (flow), and the two valid states (start/stop). This makes it clearly distinct from siblings such as list_flows, get_flow, and create_or_update_flow, which concern discovery, reading, or definition changes rather than operational state.

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 usage is implied: invoke this tool when you want to start or stop a flow, and the preview behavior supports a safe exploratory workflow. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives such as create_or_update_flow for definition changes, nor does it mention when not to use this tool or what prerequisites must exist.

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