Включить или выключить сценарий

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

Despite annotations indicating non-readonly, open world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds crucial behavioral context: publishing disables all other flows, validation prevents publishing if there are links to non-existent nodes, and disabling leaves the bot without a canvas and unresponsive. These are significant consequences not disclosed in annotations alone.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every sentence carries important information: enable/disable action, exclusivity, validation check, and disabling consequence. No wasted words.

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 tool has no output schema, but the description sufficiently covers the main behavior and side effects. It lacks details like return values (success/failure messages) or whether active defaults to true, but the schema already indicates 'active' default. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is complete enough, though a note about success/failure output would make it fully comprehensive.

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% (all four parameters have descriptions). The description adds context about validation and exclusive activation but doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 tool's function: enabling/disabling a flow script, with the specific constraint that only one flow can be active at a time and turning off leaves the bot non-responsive. This distinguishes it from sibling flow tools (e.g., flows_save, flows_delete) and other bot controls.

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 when this tool is used (publishing/enabling a flow) and a critical consequence of disabling (bot stops responding). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the title and context make it clear this is for activation/deactivation, not editing or deleting. The 'only one active' rule is a strong usage condition.

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