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

Annotations already provide idempotent, destructive, and read-only hints. The description adds valuable transparency by stating it 'does not change section content' and clarifying permission needs, offering a clear behavioral contract beyond 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 concise, consisting of three tightly written sentences without redundancy. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and a key distinction, maintaining excellent structure and focus.

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 simple tool with a clear schema and annotations, the description covers the essential context: action, effect, permission, and relationship to lock. It does not detail error conditions or return values, but those are not expected here, so it remains largely complete.

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?

The input schema describes all four parameters (slug, run_id, section_id, playbook_id) with concise explanations. The description adds minimal extra detail (e.g., reiterating the playbook_id type), so the schema bears most of the semantic weight, yielding a baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Unlock a previously locked canvas section so other agents can edit it.' It also differentiates from siblings by noting it does not change section content and referencing lock_canvas_section, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage context: it explains when to use (to unlock a locked section) and mentions permission requirements ('Requires canvas:write or full permission'). It also directs users to lock_canvas_section for locking, effectively contrasting with alternatives.

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