activate_flow_version

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

The description discloses the primary behavioral traits: activation changes the current version and optionally saves a draft. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It could mention side effects or required permissions for completeness.

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 sentence with two clauses, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the main action.

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 covers the core functionality and optional behavior. Without an output schema, it could mention return values, but the context is sufficient for an activation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all 3 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying the optional draft save. 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 clearly states the verb 'Activate' and the resource 'specific saved version of a flow', with the outcome of making it current. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_flow_version and delete_flow_version.

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 for using the tool (activating a version and optionally saving a draft), but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives or state when not to use it.

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