publish_decision_flow

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

Discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: asynchronous publishing, polling the publish job until terminal state, server-generated module ID (not publish_name), and that rule set code generation errors are environment-level. These details add significant context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 into four focused segments: purpose, prerequisite, async behavior, and error guidance. Every sentence provides useful information without fluff, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description covers the operational lifecycle (prerequisite, async polling, return integration with downstream tools), error interpretation, and the key conceptual pitfall about module ID vs publish_name. It is complete for a complex publish operation.

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?

Input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful clarification about publish_name not being the MAS module ID and the returned moduleId being the real one, plus the polling behavior via jobUri. This extra semantic context elevates the score.

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+resource+destination: 'Publish a locked decision revision to a Micro Analytic Score (MAS) destination.' This clearly identifies the action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_mas_modules (listing) and score_data (scoring).

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 to use this tool: 'Required before score_data can execute the decision — MAS runs published modules, not decision flows directly.' It also tells the agent it can avoid a separate lookup via list_mas_modules, and provides troubleshooting for environment-level errors, giving clear context vs alternatives.

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