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

The annotations establish this is a mutation and not open-world, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the plan is locked 'for good' and is time-stamped, hashed, and published. It still omits details like idempotency, error behavior on repeat calls, and whether any prerequisites must exist.

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 zero wasted language. The key constraint ('for good') and the timing instruction are 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?

For a one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral facts: finality, effects, and timing. It could be stronger by noting prerequisites (e.g., that a draft plan should exist) and what happens if the plan is already registered.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents studyId. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lock') and resource ('your plan') and explains the resulting effects: time-stamped, hashed, and published. It implicitly distinguishes itself from draft_plan/update_plan through 'for good,' but it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Do this BEFORE doing the work' gives clear timing guidance, implying the tool should be invoked prior to execution. However, it does not state alternatives (e.g., use draft_plan first) or exclusions, such as whether an already-registered plan can be re-registered.

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