lock_lock_release_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return value but fails to describe side effects, such as whether the operation is irreversible, what happens if the owner has no locks, or any potential destructive consequences. The description is minimal and lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a return value note. It conveys essential information without superfluous words. Every sentence earns its place, and the key points 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, the affected entity, and the return structure. However, it lacks some behavioral guidance and usage context, but these are partially mitigated by the clear function name.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the description must compensate. The description only restates the parameter's meaning ('owner') without adding constraints, formatting, or examples. For a single simple parameter, the description adds minimal extra value beyond the parameter name.

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 ('Release'), the resource ('all locks'), and the scope ('held by owner'). It also specifies the return value. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like lock_lock_release (releases a specific lock) and lock_lock_list (lists locks).

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to release all locks for a given owner. However, it does not include explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other scenarios, such as releasing a single lock or expiring locks.

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