deploy_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the side effect (making a version active/live), the prerequisite, and the error condition. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is reversible (e.g., via undeploy_workflow) or any other side effects like overwriting the current live version. Still, it provides solid behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, then provides the endpoint clarification, default behavior, and a critical prerequisite in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes the key requirement (commit_workflow first) prominent. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, endpoint, default behavior, prerequisite, and error condition. It could mention the effect on the previous live version or how to revert, but the core information for correct invocation is present. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (workflow_id and version). The description adds context about the version parameter ('Omit for latest committed') and workflow_id ('Family workflow_id (not a version-row id)'), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, since the schema already covers the basics, the description's added value is moderate, warranting a baseline 3.

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 tool's purpose: deploying a committed workflow/pipeline version as the active live version. It specifies the exact API endpoint (POST /api/workflows/{id}/deployments/) and distinguishes it from the SDK's deployWorkflow, which helps differentiate it from potential alternatives. The verb 'deploy' and resource 'workflow/pipeline version' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly states the prerequisite: 'must call commit_workflow first' and explains the failure mode if not met (404 'Committed version not found'). It also clarifies the default behavior when version is omitted (deploys latest committed version), giving clear guidance on when and how to use this tool. This is strong usage guidance, especially given the sibling tool commit_workflow exists.

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