Lock Decision Flow Revision

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the action 'freeze[s]' the current state as an 'immutable revision', implying a non-destructive but state-changing operation. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action and result, and the second sentence provides the lifecycle context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one required parameter, a fully documented schema, and an output schema present. The description supplies the key sequencing detail (after create/update, before publish) and enough behavioral context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already fully documents the single decision_id parameter. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 states the verb ('Lock'), the resource ('current state of a decision flow'), and the outcome ('immutable revision'). It also orients the agent within the revision lifecycle by noting the snapshot is 'referenceable by publish_decision_flow', distinguishing it from publishing, listing, or deleting revisions.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: 'Call after a successful create/update'. It also explains why this step matters by saying the revision is 'referenceable by publish_decision_flow'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as lock_business_ruleset_revision, but the decision-flow scope makes the use case clear.

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