flowforge_assistant_lifecycle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety baseline is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: publish 'answers real calls' (live side effect), clone produces an independent copy, and failures return an 'Error: ...' string with the cause — the latter being directly actionable for an agent. It omits that clone is non-idempotent (repeated calls create multiple copies), which is the one notable 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?

The definition is front-loaded with the core distinction between the two actions, then uses labeled Args/Returns/Error Handling sections that are easy to scan. The Returns section is largely redundant given an output schema exists, but the overall size is proportionate to a two-action tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief Returns note is a bonus rather than a requirement, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a mutating, non-idempotent, open-world tool the description leaves out the response_format option and does not say whether repeated clones accumulate or what publishing does to already-live traffic — meaningful omissions for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 reported at 0% (only the top-level 'params' object is exposed), so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names 'assistant_id' and 'action' and spells out the clone/publish enum semantics, which is genuinely useful, but it entirely omits the 'response_format' parameter (json vs markdown) present in the schema, leaving one of the three nested fields undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Run a lifecycle action on an assistant') and then defines both operations concretely: 'clone creates an independent copy' and 'publish deploys the current configuration so it answers real calls'. An agent can distinguish this from flowforge_create_assistant or flowforge_update_assistant without reading the schema.

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 parenthetical 'useful for safe iteration' implies when clone is the right choice over publishing, which gives partial when-to-use guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over sibling operations such as flowforge_create_assistant, flowforge_update_assistant, or flowforge_import_assistant, and offers 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.