request_publish_flow

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly states it does not publish, creates approval request, and returns pending approval with readiness. Missing details on side effects like idempotency, state prerequisites (e.g., flow must be a draft), or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant information. Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by critical negation and return value. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior. However, lacks details about state requirements (e.g., flow must be in draft) and error scenarios. Could mention prerequisites or typical failure reasons.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (id, changeSummary) with 100% coverage. Description adds no new semantic meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly identifies the action 'request that a flow be published' and the resource 'flow'. Distinguishes from direct publishing by emphasizing it creates a pending approval. Differentiated from sibling request_publish_* tools by specifying 'flow' and noting return of pending approval.

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?

States explicitly when to use (to initiate publishing approval) and what it does not do (does not publish). Provides context that a human approves in Axonity. Could mention alternatives like list_publish_approvals or check existing approvals, but sufficient for basic use.

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