security-set-item-lock

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral context that this is independent of delete protection, but does not explain side effects such as what happens to an existing lock held by another user or reversibility.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the disambiguation clause immediately following. No filler.

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?

Complete enough for a lock/unlock mutation: schema covers all 8 parameters and annotations cover the safety profile, and the description clarifies scope relative to protection. No output schema exists, but the return shape is not essential to correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter (force, action, id/path, full, passThru) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pair (locks/unlocks) and resource (Sitecore item for editing), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling security-set-item-protection. An agent can identify the tool's job and its boundary without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (security-set-item-protection) and the condition that separates the two concerns (editing lock vs delete protection). It does not spell out when lock vs unlock applies, but that is covered by the action enum, so the guidance is clear though not exhaustive.

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