ds_release_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals the side effect that DS takes schedules offline when the workflow goes offline and that auto_online_schedule can reactivate them. It also includes a return structure. Missing are permission requirements and idempotency, but the provided behavioral details are substantive.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to scan. It is slightly verbose (e.g., 'True=online, False=offline' is redundant with the boolean type) but every section serves a purpose. Minimal trimming could improve conciseness.

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?

The description provides enough context for a simple release toggle: purpose, side-effect, parameter meanings, and return format. It lacks an explicit statement about what happens to running instances or necessary permissions, but given the tool's simplicity and the inclusion of a return schema, it is reasonably complete.

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?

Despite the schema having 0% description coverage, the description explicitly lists all four parameters with their meanings (e.g., 'online: True=online, False=offline', 'auto_online_schedule: Auto-reactivate associated schedule'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of semantic info.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Bring a workflow online or offline.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling schedule-related tools (ds_online_schedule, ds_offline_schedule) and read-only workflow tools (ds_get_workflow, ds_list_workflows).

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 gives clear context for use: releasing a workflow to online or offline state. It also explains a specific interaction (auto_online_schedule reactivates schedules), which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with alternatives like ds_online_schedule, though the resource focus makes it implicitly clear.

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