fluig_process_version_release

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it flags the write with ⚠️ ESCRITA, explains that the active version changes only for NEW requests while in-flight ones stay on the old version, and notes no XML reimport is needed. It stops short of covering permissions, undo paths (e.g., fluig_process_version_withdraw), or failure modes.

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?

Four dense sentences, zero waste: the write warning is front-loaded, then purpose, then the sibling relationship, then the parameter and state-transition semantics. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 no-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter omission behavior and the post-state of running requests. It does not say what the call returns (e.g., which version is now active) or whether the operation can be reverted.

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% and the schema already documents env, confirm, processId and processVersion (including 'omita = latest'), so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the underlying route (/latest/release) for the omission behavior, which is a small increment over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('PUBLICA uma versão de processo que já existe em edição, sem reimportar XML') and immediately contrasts with the two siblings that create versions without publishing. An agent can distinguish this from fluig_process_import_xml and fluig_process_event_set_xml without opening any 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?

Explicitly positions the tool as the closing step of the import_xml/event_set_xml cycle and tells the agent the selection rule ('os dois criam versão SEM publicar'). It also gives the fallback behavior for the optional parameter ('Omita processVersion para publicar a última').

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