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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds nothing beyond them. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also gives no context on what destruction means here, whether locking applies recursively to children of a group, or whether locked shapes can still be selected or transformed.

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 single sentence is short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — every word simply duplicates the title, so no sentence earns additional value.

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 no output schema and a low-coverage input schema, the description needed to explain the toggle semantics and the multi-id scope of shape_ids; it does neither. For a mutation tool flagged destructive, this leaves meaningful gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the two parameters and does not. It never says that 'locked: true' locks and 'false' unlocks, nor that shape_ids accepts multiple ids and what happens with mixed or invalid ids.

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?

"Lock or unlock shapes" does contain a verb (lock/unlock) and a resource (shapes), but it is a verbatim restatement of the title "Lock or unlock shapes" and adds no distinguishing detail. It never explains what locking means in this editor (e.g., prevents selection/editing) or how it differs from related siblings like clip_shapes or group.

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?

There is no guidance on when to lock versus unlock, no prerequisites (does the shape need to be selected or active?), and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The agent must infer everything from the boolean parameter name.

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