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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. Indicates a mutation (locking), but does not state if reversible, required permissions, or what happens if already locked or intent not ready. Incomplete disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, short, but overly terse. Could be more informative while remaining concise. Lacks structure but is not verbose.

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 tool with two required params and no output schema, description lacks preconditions (what is a 'ready intent'?), error states, and return value. Insufficient for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description should explain parameters. Only mentions owner_token in parentheses as authentication. No details on merge_id (e.g., what it represents, how to obtain it). Leaves agent guessing.

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?

Clearly states the action is to 'lock a ready intent' and specifies the effect: 'no further parents can join'. Distinguishes from siblings like cancel_merge (cancel) and join_merge (add). However, 'ready intent' is jargon not explained.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Mentions owner_token for authentication but does not compare to similar tools like cancel_merge or confirm_parent. Missing criteria for when locking is appropriate.

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