publish_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is very brief. It implies mutation ('publish') but does not disclose side effects, destruction of draft, authentication needs, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 very short (one phrase), but it is under-specified and lacks critical information. While not verbose, it fails to provide necessary details, making it insufficient rather than appropriately concise.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter explanations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, side effects, or the effect on the workflow state, leaving major gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 0%. The description does not explain the purpose or expected values of the 'name' and 'comment' parameters. Adding only the schema property names without any additional context leaves the agent guessing their 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 'Publish draft as new version' clearly states the action (publish) and the resource (draft) and outcome (new version). It distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_workflow or run_node, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent unaware of appropriate usage scenarios.

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