enable_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the effect (enabling a workflow) but does not mention idempotency, prerequisites, or what happens if the workflow is already enabled. For a simple enable operation, this is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the SKU-specific detail is provided concisely. Every sentence 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?

Given the simplicity of the operation (enable), the description covers the essential purpose and the SKU distinction. No output schema exists, but the return value is implied. It could mention potential errors or idempotency, but overall complete for a basic tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, but the description adds value by explaining that 'workflowName' is required for Standard SKU. This clarifies the parameter's conditional requirement beyond the schema's static description.

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 uses specific verb 'Enable' and resource 'workflow', and clearly distinguishes behavior between Consumption and Standard Logic Apps. This differentiates it from sibling tool 'disable_workflow' and from other workflow manipulation tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to enable a disabled workflow) and explains the difference between Logic App SKUs. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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