Deactivate Flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds beyond that by specifying the status change to Draft, the effect on triggering, and explicitly stating that deactivation is not deletion. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not mention any prerequisites or side effects like whether a flow must have an active version.

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 three concise sentences, each with a distinct purpose: main action and effect, alternative tool, and non-destructive note. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the consequence (stops triggering), the relationship to activation, and the non-deletion aspect. It doesn't explain what happens if there is no active version or how to handle errors, but for the simplicity of the operation, it is sufficiently complete.

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 has 100% parameter coverage with 'flowApiName' described as 'Flow API name to deactivate'. The description adds value by clarifying that the operation targets the 'currently active version', which explains what the API name refers to in the context of deactivation. It also notes the use of the Tooling API, giving extra semantic context beyond the bare 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 clearly states the action: 'Deactivates the currently active version of a Flow via the Tooling API, setting its status to Draft.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling sf_activate_flow, which is mentioned as the counterpart for re-activation.

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 usage context: 'This stops the flow from being triggered.' It also names the alternative tool explicitly ('Use sf_activate_flow to re-activate a specific version') and clarifies a common misconception with 'Note: deactivating a flow does not delete it.' This satisfies the when-to-use and alternatives guidance.

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