publish_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits like valid status transitions and the effect of setting 'live' to publish a draft, but it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations, as there are none.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three sentences that each earn their place: stating the purpose, listing transitions, and explaining the 'live' status. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and clear.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (status transitions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers key behavioral aspects but could improve by addressing permissions or error scenarios. It effectively uses the high schema coverage to focus on added context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of the 'status' parameter, clarifying that 'live' publishes a draft workflow, which goes beyond the schema's enum listing. This compensates for the lack of output 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Change the status') and resource ('workflow'), and it distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'start_workflow' or 'update_workflow' by focusing on status transitions rather than execution or content updates.

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 context on when to use the tool by listing valid status transitions (e.g., 'created/draft -> live'), which implicitly guides usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'promote_draft' for draft workflows.

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