publish_decision_flow

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

With no annotations present, the description fully discloses the async behavior, polling mechanism, server-generated module ID, error interpretation (rule set code generation is environment-level), and the fact that the result is directly usable downstream. This is far beyond a basic description and gives the agent critical runtime expectations.

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 core purpose, then prerequisites, then async details. Every sentence adds distinct value—no padding or repetition. The structure flows logically from what → when → how, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (async job, upstream dependency, downstream consumers), the description covers prerequisites, error interpretation, polling behavior, and result usability. The output schema exists, so not explaining return values is appropriate. This description is fully self-contained for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic clarifications beyond the schema for publish_name (not the MAS module ID) and decision_id (not the name). While poll_timeout and destination_name are adequately covered by the schema, the additional context for the key parameters justifies a score above baseline.

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 ('Publish') and identifies the exact resource ('locked decision revision') and destination ('Micro Analytic Score (MAS) destination'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like publish_ml_champion_model and list_mas_modules by stating the publish action's unique role in the decision flow lifecycle.

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?

Explicitly states when this tool is required ('Required before score_data can execute the decision'), gives a key prerequisite (DS2 code generation service health), and notes that no separate lookup via list_mas_modules is needed. This provides clear usage context and direct alternative avoidance.

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