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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered by structured data. The description adds nothing about what locking actually does, whether it is reversible, whether it blocks other writers, or what happens on version mismatch despite naming expectedVersion — a meaningful gap for a destructive operation.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the core action leads. It is slightly under-specified rather than padded, so brevity costs it little here.

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 destructive, nested-input mutation with no output schema and 4 parameters, the description omits the nested input contract, the effect of locking, and any failure/version-conflict behavior. An agent can identify the tool but cannot confidently construct the nested payload or predict the outcome.

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 75%, and workspaceId plus idempotencyKey are well documented in the schema. The description's real contribution is naming expectedVersion and revisionId, which are required but invisible in the schema because they live inside the undocumented nested 'input' object with additionalProperties {}. That is useful added meaning, but no format or semantics for those fields are given, so it lands at the 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?

States a specific verb ('Lock') and resource ('mapped revision'), which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like verify_sulvo_placement_installation. But 'exact mapped revision' is jargon that leaves the scope and effect of locking ambiguous, and it never names the nearby siblings it differs from (map_sulvo_placement_backup, save_sulvo_placement_plan).

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says at what journey stage a caller should lock a revision, what prerequisite state must exist, or what alternative to use instead. The only usage-like content is a restatement of required inputs.

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