conduyt_unpublish_call_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: the number stops executing the graph and falls back to default routing. It does not say whether unpublishing is reversible, whether published state is preserved, or what permissions are required, so the mutation profile remains partially opaque.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and its consequence with zero filler. Every clause 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 single-parameter state-change tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential effect on routing. It falls slightly short on reversibility, permission requirements, and the resulting response, which an agent would want before invoking a mutation.

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?

Only one parameter (id) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no additional meaning about the id or format, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource (unpublish a call flow) and adds the operational consequence that the number stops executing the graph. It implicitly contrasts with publish_call_flow and delete_call_flow, though it doesn't name them explicitly, keeping it just below a 5.

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 implies when the effect applies (number falls back to default routing) but never states when to choose this over deleting or updating the flow. No explicit when-to-use or prerequisites are given.

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