security-unlock-user

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation-but-non-destructive profile is already covered. The description clarifies the state being reversed (a failed-login lockout), which is useful, but says nothing about required permissions, side effects, or whether it affects only the lockout counter.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource plus the qualifying condition. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive action with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. Only the lack of permission/authorization context and sibling disambiguation keeps it from the top mark.

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% for the single 'identity' parameter, including format examples, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (unlocks) and resource (Sitecore user account) and adds the triggering condition (locked out due to failed login attempts). This implicitly separates it from security-enable-user and security-disable-user, which act on account status rather than lockout state, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 locked-out-due-to-failed-logins condition implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites or which sibling to prefer (e.g. enable-user vs unlock-user for a disabled account). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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