Activate Lookup Table

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

Beyond the destructive annotation, the description discloses important behavioral effects: already-published decisions use new entries on their next call, the previous active version remains in use until activation completes, and outcome can be active, running, or failed. It also explains republish as a recovery operation for a destination that lost the published version.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by focused paragraphs on activation effects, outcome states, and republish. Every sentence adds operational meaning with no redundant filler.

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?

The tool is a destructive activation operation, and the description covers activation effects, previous-version behavior, outcome states, and republish recovery. With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, no critical agent-facing detail is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning for republish and version behavior beyond the schema text. It explains that republish is for a destination that lost the active version, and clarifies wait_seconds through the running outcome state.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: make a lookup table version active by publishing its entries to MAS and CAS. It clearly distinguishes activation from editing or creating lookup tables, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as update_lookup_table or publish_decision_flow.

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?

It explains the key usage contexts: activating a version for rules, and using republish when a destination such as CAS lost the active version. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus update/publish siblings, but the conditions for activation and republish are clear.

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