Set Personalize Flow Status (publish/pause)

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the internal mechanism: it reads the current flow definition and writes it back with the new status, and notes that updates are a full replace. It also flags production impact, which is especially useful for a write operation. Annotations already indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the reason/mechanism, and the impact. It is compact without sacrificing necessary context and frontloads the core purpose.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains how the operation works, why this endpoint exists, and warns about production impact. The agent has all needed information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions, including the enum guidance for status. The description largely restates the schema's examples rather than adding new parameter-level insight. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline 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 states a specific action ('Changes a flow definition's status') with concrete examples ('PRODUCTION'/'LIVE' to publish, 'PAUSED' to pause), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/execute tools. The verb and resource are unambiguous and not a mere restatement of the tool name.

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?

It clearly communicates when to use this tool: to publish or pause a flow when there is no dedicated publish endpoint. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, though the phrase about the missing endpoint and full-replace mechanism provides strong contextual guidance.

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