lock_decision_flow_revision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the tool locks the state as an immutable revision, implying mutation and irreversibility. However, it does not detail what happens if already locked or error conditions. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without waste. The first sentence states what, the second adds when and why.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage context. It could mention irreversibility or scope of locking but overall is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema already explains the single parameter 'decision_id' as a UUID. The description does not add further semantics beyond referencing the decision flow context. Given 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lock' and resource 'current state of a decision flow' to produce an 'immutable revision'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'create_decision_flow' and 'publish_decision_flow' by stating it is a post-create/update step that freezes a point-in-time snapshot.

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 explicitly says 'Call after a successful create/update' and indicates the revision is referenceable by 'publish_decision_flow', providing clear context on when to use. It does not list exclusions or alternatives explicitly, but the intended use case is well defined.

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