disable_flow

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

While destructiveHint already communicates the mutation risk, the description adds valuable context about the unofficial, unsupported API endpoint and potential behavior changes. It also suggests a verification method, going beyond the annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The bracketed configuration note ([DISABLED: set ENABLE_WRITE_OPS=true]) adds necessary context but slightly clutters the flow; otherwise each 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, key parameters, verification step, and a notable risk caveat. It lacks response format details, but that is not required given the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It briefly restates the parameters and their optionality but adds no additional semantic value beyond 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 opens with 'Turn a flow off' which is a specific verb+resource action, clearly distinguishing it from enable or delete operations. It also references the POST .../stop endpoint, adding precision.

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?

Provides a verification step ('Verify with get_flow') and notes environment optionality, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like enable_flow or delete_flow. The usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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