Publish Decision Flow

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: publishing is asynchronous, the module ID is server-generated and not publish_name, the tool polls the publish job until terminal state, and it returns the real moduleId for direct downstream use. It also notes a service-health dependency for DS2 code generation, which is useful operational context. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 structured in three focused paragraphs: what it does, when it is required, and how the async behavior works. Every sentence carries distinct information, and the most important facts are front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with five parameters, an output schema, and a non-trivial async publish flow, the description covers prerequisites, environment dependencies, result behavior, and downstream tool integration. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret the response without additional lookup.

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?

While the input schema has 100% coverage, the description adds meaningful semantic context by emphasizing that publish_name is NOT the MAS module ID and that decision_id is a UUID, not a name. It also clarifies that revision_id must be a locked revision, which is not fully captured in the schema descriptions alone.

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 and resource: 'Publish a locked decision revision to a Micro Analytic Score (MAS) destination.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining that MAS runs published modules, not decision flows directly, and explicitly connects to score_data and list_mas_modules.

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 states when this tool is required ('Required before score_data can execute the decision') and gives an explicit alternative: the result is usable without a separate lookup via list_mas_modules. It also clarifies that an error about rule set code generation is environment-level, not a payload issue, which helps the agent decide whether to retry or escalate.

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