conduyt_publish_automation

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work: it discloses the copy-draft-to-live mutation and the optimistic-concurrency binding to the reviewed revision. However, it omits whether publishing takes effect immediately, whether it can be undone, required permissions, and what failure looks like on a revision mismatch.

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, zero filler. The core behavior leads, the precondition follows, and the revision semantics close — a sensible front-loaded order.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and revision handling. Gaps remain on side effects after publish and error behavior, but nothing essential to selecting the tool is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds rationale the schema does not: expectedConfigRevision exists to pin the publish to "the draft revision you reviewed," clarifying it as a conflict-guard rather than a routine field.

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 ("Publish an automation") and immediately explains the underlying mechanism: draft actions are copied to the live published version. This distinguishes it from sibling mutators like conduyt_update_automation or the parallel conduyt_publish_call_flow.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition ("must have actions defined") and frames the call as following a draft review, implying the review-then-publish workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when publishing should be avoided, but the context for invoking it is clear.

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