Lock the exact mapped revision. Input requires expectedVersion and revisionId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | No | Fields required by this journey action. | |
| workspaceId | Yes | Activation workspace identifier returned by the start or status tool. | |
| outputFormat | No | markdown | |
| idempotencyKey | No | Optional retry key. Reuse it when retrying the same mutation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states 'lock the exact mapped revision' without disclosing side effects, destructiveness, permissions, or other behavioral traits.
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 one short sentence with no wasted words. It could benefit from slightly more structure, but it remains efficient.
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 complexity (4 parameters, journey context, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and when to call this tool within the Sulvo workflow.
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?
The description adds meaning by specifying that the 'input' object should contain 'expectedVersion' and 'revisionId', which are not detailed in the schema. However, it does not explain the other parameters like workspaceId, outputFormat, or idempotencyKey.
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 locks a revision, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like map_sulvo_placement_backup or verify_sulvo_placement_installation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions required inputs, without context on when locking is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
