publish_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a write operation ('[Write]') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether publishing is reversible, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., making the flow active), or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, using only one sentence plus a tag. It avoids unnecessary words, though the '[Write]' tag could be integrated more smoothly.

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 tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, usage context, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('flow_sys_id' and 'type') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, but the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the action ('publish (activate)') and resource ('a draft flow or subflow'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'publish_changeset' or 'publish_knowledge_article', which have similar publishing actions but different resources.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., needing a draft flow), or exclusions. It lacks context for distinguishing from other publishing tools or creation/update tools in the sibling list.

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