publish_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly discloses that publishing makes the flow JSON immutable, a critical irreversible behavior. However, it does not mention what happens to the flow status, whether the operation is idempotent, or any required auth/permissions.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence contributes essential information. No fluff or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior and a key side effect. It lacks details on error conditions or return values, but these are not critical for understanding the primary function.

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?

Although the schema already describes flow_id as 'The Flow ID to publish', the description adds crucial context: the flow must be in DRAFT state. This gives the parameter meaning beyond a mere string identifier.

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') and the resource ('a DRAFT WhatsApp Flow'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that update or delete flows. The additional note about immutability further specifies the scope.

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 explicitly limits usage to DRAFT flows, signaling that it is not for published flows. The warning that flow JSON cannot be modified after publishing implies that any edits must be done beforehand, but it does not directly name alternatives like update_flow_json or deprecate_flow.

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