Publish Workflow

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds important behavioral traits: validation occurs during publish, and failure provides structured error details (step, issue type, missing inputs). It also warns that workflowLiveId changes on every publish, so caching is discouraged. This goes beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main action and then provides context and parameter details in a logical order. It is slightly long but each sentence adds value. A more concise version could merge some lines, but it remains clear.

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 thoroughly covers all 3 parameters, explains return values (even though no output schema), describes validation error details, and includes a note about the UI URL path. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, this is complete and well-rounded.

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%, but the description adds meaning: it explains that workflowObjectId and workflowDraftId come from create_workflow, that shouldActivate defaults to true, and clarifies that the return value workflowLiveId changes on each publish. This enriches the schema descriptions and helps the agent understand usage.

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: 'Publishes a workflow draft, promoting it to the live version.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like create_workflow, update_workflow, and plan_workflow by describing the publishing step in the workflow lifecycle.

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?

It explicitly advises using this after create_workflow (and optionally update_workflow) to activate the workflow. It also describes validation failure behavior and the URL path nuance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other publish-like tools (if any), which would earn a 5.

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