Publish workflow template version

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

Annotations cover the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantive beyond that: OWNER-role authorization, optimistic-concurrency behavior (stale expected_current_version yields a conflict), immutability of the version, and a set of validation constraints the definition must satisfy.

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?

Three tight sentences: action front-loaded, then preconditions, then validation constraints. Every clause carries information and none is filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a deeply nested definition object plus low schema coverage, the description covers the important operational facts (auth, concurrency, immutability, validation limits). It leaves the definition sub-structure and the returned version details to inference, which is a minor gap.

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 only 25% (only farm_id is documented), so the description must compensate. It does add semantic meaning for expected_current_version (must match exactly; stale value conflicts) and for the definition's validation rules, but it says nothing about template_id or the nested field/definition structure.

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 (Publish) and resource (immutable new template version), making the core action unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings like create_workflow_template or update_workflow_template_state, so an agent must infer which lifecycle operation this is.

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 real preconditions (OWNER role, exact expected_current_version) that gate usage, which is more than nothing. But it never says when to prefer this over create_workflow_template or update_workflow_template_state, and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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