Lock Decisioning Asset Revision

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: Viya locks the current revision, opens the next one, and later edits go to working_revision without changing the locked state. It also gives a concrete version example (1.0 locked, 1.1 open). This is exactly the kind of state-transition and immutability information an agent needs for a mutation tool, and 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 front-loaded with the action, then explains the revision lifecycle with no wasted sentences. The parenthetical version example and the locked_revision/working_revision distinction earn their place.

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 correct invocation, the description is largely complete: it explains the locking effect, the version transition, and the immutability of the locked revision, and the output schema covers return values. It stops short of describing prerequisites such as whether a current revision must exist, and it does not clarify selection against overlapping lock siblings.

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 schema already documents asset_id, asset_type, and revision_type. The description reiterates the asset types but does not explain revision_type's minor/major semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Freeze the current state of a rule set, decision, segmentation tree or code file as a locked revision.' It clearly identifies the asset types and the locking action, but it does not distinguish this generic lock tool from siblings such as lock_business_ruleset_revision or lock_decision_flow_revision.

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?

Usage is implied by the locking action and the enumerated asset types, and the description explains that the locked revision can be referenced or published. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not route the agent between this tool and the specialized lock tools in the sibling list.

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