publishWorkflow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write/destructive nature is known. The description adds real value beyond that: a hard refusal condition (draft validation errors), the operational consequence (real events then run it), the pause caveat, and an explicit user-confirmation requirement. It does not say what happens to the previously live version, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the action first, then consequences, then the prerequisite, then the confirmation policy. Every sentence carries operational information.

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?

With no output schema, the description could state what a successful publish returns or how to confirm it, and it is silent on the fate of the prior live version. Otherwise, for a one-parameter mutation with strong annotations, the prerequisite, error, and confirmation context make it adequately complete.

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% and there is a single parameter (workflow_id) already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance for that parameter, so it sits at the baseline for a well-covered 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 states a specific verb and resource: making the draft the live version of a workflow. It is clear enough to distinguish from validateWorkflow (which it names as a prerequisite), but it never differentiates itself from the sibling activateWorkflow/deactivateWorkflow tools, which an agent could easily confuse with publishing.

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?

It gives concrete usage conditions: run `validateWorkflow` first, publish is refused while the draft has errors, and ask the user before publishing. It also notes that real events run the workflow unless paused. It stops short of stating when *not* to use this tool or how it relates to activateWorkflow.

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