conduyt_publish_call_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that invalid graphs are refused, that a missing expectedUpdatedAt returns 428, and that concurrent edits fail 409 instead of overwriting. It omits permission requirements and what the response contains after publishing.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then the required-parameter rule and its race-condition rationale. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the critical preconditions and error behavior an agent needs to call it correctly. Only permission/auth expectations and the post-publish result are unstated.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains why expectedUpdatedAt is mandatory and what failure each scenario produces. The 'id' parameter is left to the schema, which is fine.

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 a call flow's draft) plus the concrete effect ('making it live on its phone number'), which distinguishes it from conduyt_unpublish_call_flow and conduyt_validate_call_flow in the sibling list. An agent knows exactly which operation this is.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to read the flow first via conduyt_get_call_flow and pass its updatedAt, giving a clear prerequisite workflow. It does not, however, name conduyt_validate_call_flow as the pre-check alternative for the 'invalid graph' refusal, so the when-not path is only implied by the failure mode.

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