Включить или выключить сценарий

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

Annotations establish a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds substantial value beyond that: the exclusivity side effect (other same-kind scenarios are disabled), the pre-publish graph validation that blocks links to non-existent nodes, and the effect of disabling. These are real behavioral disclosures not derivable from annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the exclusivity rule, then validation and disabling behavior. No filler, though it could be marginally tighter by merging the enable and disable sentences.

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 4-parameter toggle with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the crucial behavioral context (exclusivity, validation gate) an agent needs to call it correctly. Only return-value behavior remains unspecified, which is acceptable without 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 description coverage is 100%, so bot/case/flow/active are already fully documented, including the default case resolution and active=true default. The description restates the enable/disable meaning of active but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource (enable/disable a scenario) and immediately adds the non-obvious exclusivity rule: enabling one flow disables others of the same kind. This clearly delineates the tool from flows_save/restore/import/export siblings, which an agent can distinguish without opening any schema.

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 explains the operational context (one active scenario for dialogs/community) and the enable/disable effect, implying when to use it. However, it never names alternatives such as flows_save for editing or flows_restore for reverting, nor states explicit when-not conditions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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