publish_workflow

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as a significant state change, and the description adds real context beyond it: the workflow becomes active, will start processing contacts when triggered, and the full workflow object is returned. It stops short of stating whether publishing is reversible or what permissions are required.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and state change, followed by the operational consequence and the return value. No filler, and the return-value sentence is useful given there is no output schema.

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 single-parameter state-transition tool with only a destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the description covers the action, the consequence, and the return shape. Missing only edge-case behavior such as what happens if the workflow is already published or lacks required steps.

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 single workflowId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its source ('from list_workflows'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Publish a draft workflow, changing its status to published') and names the state transition, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like update_workflow or patch_workflow, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the precondition 'draft workflow' — use this when a workflow is in draft and should go live. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites or authorization, and no routing to alternatives such as update_workflow for non-status changes.

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