lock_business_ruleset_revision

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

Annotations only indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description goes much further by revealing that the request replaces the rule set's full content, requiring a fetch-and-resend pattern, and explicitly warns that omitting rules would wipe the live rule set. This is critical behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide.

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, starting with the core purpose, then explaining context, and finally providing a critical implementation warning. Every sentence adds value, and the three short paragraphs are easy to scan.

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 has a complex and potentially risky behavior (replacing full content), and the description fully covers how to use it correctly, why revisions are needed, and what pitfalls to avoid. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. The description is complete for its complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The schema already explains both parameters (ruleset_id is a UUID, revision_type is minor/major). The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, though the warning about the body content relates to how parameters should be used.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Lock') and resource ('current state of a rule set as an immutable revision'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like lock_decision_flow_revision. It also explains the purpose of revisions in decision flows, making the tool's role 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 clearly states when to use the tool ('before wiring a rule set into a decision flow') and when to call again ('after editing rules'). It also warns about the risk of omitting rules. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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