lock_business_ruleset_revision

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behavior: the revision-creation request 'replaces the rule set's full content from the body sent,' and warns that omitting rules would 'wipe the live rule set's rules, not just the new revision.' This is essential safety information for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with clear paragraphs explaining purpose, usage, and behavior. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 (involves fetching content, creating revision, risk of data loss) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: why revisions are needed, when to call, the replacement behavior, and the parameter semantics indirectly. No gaps remain.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond the schema, though it implicitly references ruleset_id and revision_type. No additional semantic value is added for the parameters themselves.

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 action: 'Lock the current state of a rule set as an immutable revision.' It explains why it's needed (decision steps reference a specific revision) and distinguishes it from similar tools like lock_decision_flow_revision by explicitly mentioning business rulesets.

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 clear guidance on when to use: before wiring a rule set into a decision flow, and to 'call again after editing rules if a decision needs to pick up the changes.' It implicitly advises against overuse by noting that a revision must exist before wiring, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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