lock_decision_flow_revision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key semantics: 'immutable,' 'point-in-time snapshot,' and 'referenceable by publish_decision_flow.' However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility/idempotency, or behavior on already-locked flows.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action in the first sentence, and uses the second sentence to explain when to call it. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description supplies enough operational context: what it does, when to call it, and how the result is used. Minor omissions, such as behavior when a revision is already locked or whether the lock can be undone, prevent a perfect score.

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 tool description itself adds no parameter-specific detail, but the input schema provides a thorough description for decision_id (UUID, not name, and list_decision_flows returns both). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 clearly identifies the action ('Lock the current state of a decision flow as an immutable revision') and the resource ('decision flow'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling list/get/publish tools by emphasizing the snapshot/locking role.

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 second sentence provides explicit timing guidance: 'Call after a successful create/update to freeze the approved state.' It also names the downstream consumer (publish_decision_flow), giving clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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