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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core side effect ('a locked entity accepts no new children'), which is genuinely useful, but omits whether unlocking restores child acceptance, whether locking cascades to descendants, what permissions or ownership checks apply, and whether the operation is reversible. The 'Optional room' clause is behaviorally opaque.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action and effect front-loaded. Most of the text earns its place, though the trailing 'Optional room' fragment is too terse to be informative and reads as an afterthought rather than useful guidance.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition covers purpose and primary effect but leaves important gaps: room semantics, ownership/permission requirements, reversibility, and return behavior. It is minimally adequate for a simple toggle but not complete for a mutation with zero structured documentation.

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 must explain all three parameters. It implies id is the caller's own entity and that 'locked' selects lock versus unlock, but never explains the id pattern or, critically, what 'room' means or how it changes the operation. The vague 'Optional room' sentence adds almost no semantic value over the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'Lock or unlock your own entity,' with the scope constraint 'your own.' The added clause 'a locked entity accepts no new children' makes the effect concrete, so an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema. It stops short of naming any sibling tool, though none of the listed siblings appears to be a lock alternative.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer you lock when you want to prevent new children, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. Ownership ('your own entity') is the only stated constraint on applicability. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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