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

Annotations only carry openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description bears the burden and does add behavioral context: it discloses that publishing changes which version is served to callers and that @published dynamic endpoints are affected. Reversibility, idempotency, and preconditions are not addressed, but the core state-change behavior is meaningfully disclosed.

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 a single 22-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, states the consequence, and folds in the @published context without any repetition or 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 simple 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and the key side-effect. It omits prerequisites (e.g., the version must already exist), reversibility guidance, and any note that no unpublish_workflow sibling exists — a gap given the publish_*/unpublish_* pattern in the sibling list.

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%, with both workflow_id and version documented in the input schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, where 'the version number to make live' already captures the essential semantics.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Publish') with an exact resource ('a workflow version') and explains the operational consequence: the published version becomes the one served to callers. This separates it from the publish_* siblings (publish_app, publish_datafile, publish_schedule, etc.) by resource type, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 to use the tool — to promote a workflow version to live status — by describing the effect on callers and dynamic endpoints referencing @published. However, it names no alternative tools, gives no when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling list contains no unpublish_workflow, leaving the revert path undefined.

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