publish_flow

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the [Write] tag is redundant. The description adds the behavioral nuance that this is for drafts only and results in activation, which is useful but not deeply detailed. No additional risks or prerequisites are disclosed.

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 a single concise sentence with a clear verb and object. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler words.

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 simple write action with only 2 parameters (both documented) and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's function. The draft qualifier and the type field make the scope clear. No additional return-value or error details are necessary given the simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%: both 'flow_sys_id' and 'type' are already described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Publish (activate)') and the resource ('draft flow or subflow'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_flow, update_flow, and trigger_flow by focusing on activation of a draft.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a draft flow or subflow that should be published/activated. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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