commit_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries behavioral weight. It discloses the state transition (locks draft as read-only), the HTTP endpoint, the deploy prerequisite, and a platform/SDK nuance. It does not mention reversibility, idempotency, or behavior when a commit already exists, but the core mutating/locking behavior is clearly conveyed.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, prerequisite, endpoint correction, lifecycle flow, and scope. The numbered flow makes it easy to scan, and there is no filler or 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 lifecycle-mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, scope, and endpoint, which is sufficient for selecting and invoking it correctly. It omits return/error semantics, but with no output schema and only two documented parameters, that remaining gap is minor.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents workflow_id as a 'Family workflow_id (not a version-row id)' and description as a commit message. The description reinforces this by referencing the current draft and endpoint id, but it adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Commit the current draft of a workflow/pipeline', and states the outcome ('locking it as a read-only version that can be deployed'). It also explicitly distinguishes the operation from deploy_workflow and the SDK's createWorkflowVersion, so an agent can disambiguate it from siblings.

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 says 'REQUIRED before deploy_workflow' and explains that deploy rejects calls without a committed version. The numbered lifecycle (create_workflow/create_evaluation_pipeline -> commit_workflow -> deploy_workflow) plus the list of applicable workflow types gives strong when-to-use guidance and clarifies its place among alternatives.

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