conduyt_workflow_promote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: a validation gate, returning errors and refusing to publish on failure, and a draft-to-live state change. It omits whether promotion is reversible/undoable, what permissions are required, and what a successful publish returns.

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 front-loaded sentences with the purpose and the safety gate stated first, and no filler. The closing recommendation partly restates the opening 'Safely publish', a small redundancy.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (gate, refusal, state transition). It is only missing peripheral details like reversibility and permission requirements, which keep it from a 5.

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% with both parameters documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about automationId or the allowWarnings flag; its talk of 'errors' does not clarify that warnings can be allowed through.

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 workflow', draft to live) and clarifies the tool's distinct two-phase behavior (validate-then-publish), which separates it from the pure validation sibling. It stops short of naming conduyt_workflow_validate, conduyt_workflow_simulate, or conduyt_publish_automation, so the agent must infer the boundary from the 'recommended way to go live' phrasing.

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 recommends itself as the go-live path and states the reason (prevents broken workflows from reaching contacts), which gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude or name the alternatives (e.g., validate-only or a raw publish automation), leaving the comparison implicit.

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