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

While annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, the description adds crucial behavioral context: it is a recovery-only action, not for bypassing active edits, and lock state is not directly readable, requiring cross-referencing with another tool. The user confirmation requirement further clarifies the operational implications.

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 yet complete, with front-loaded 'RECOVERY-ONLY' and a clear verb phrase. Each sentence serves a purpose: warning, verification procedure, and user-safety note. The line breaks improve readability without padding.

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?

Given the tool's niche recovery purpose and the availability of an output schema, the description fully covers the decision-making context: when to use, how to verify staleness, and what precautions to take. No critical information is missing for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter project_id as 'the project to unlock' with 100% coverage. The description adds contextual meaning by linking project_id to lock stale/abandoned state, but this doesn't significantly enhance the parameter's semantic clarity beyond the schema baseline.

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: 'releases a project's editing lock when a stale or abandoned session blocks new modifications.' The verb 'releases' and resource 'project's editing lock' are specific, and the recovery-only framing distinguishes it from normal editing tools like dreamagent_chat or dreamagent_cancel_chat.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'RECOVERY-ONLY', 'NOT a normal editing step', and 'NEVER a way to bypass an actively running edit.' It also gives a concrete procedure for determining staleness by checking dreamagent_get_edit_progress and advises user confirmation, leaving no ambiguity about when or how to use this tool.

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