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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the lock is Overlord-only, the root and replies remain readable, and the unlock behavior differs depending on whether the lock is yours, another operator's, or on a hidden root. This meaningfully exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose, the role restriction, the readability guarantee, and the nuanced unlock rules. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is 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?

The description covers auth, visibility effects, and lock-ownership edge cases, with the output schema covering return values. The phrase 'released by the operator' is slightly ambiguous about who exactly the operator is in the hidden-root case, but overall the context is sufficient for safe invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explains unlock=true semantics clearly, but never explicitly maps message_id to the thread being locked, leaving that inference implicit from 'lock a thread'.

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 action as locking a thread against new replies and unlocking it, which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like board_delete or board_hide beyond the verb itself.

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?

The 'Overlord only' restriction gives a clear prerequisite, and 'lock a thread against new replies' conveys the primary use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the lock/unlock semantics are described clearly enough to guide use.

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