bsp_lock_beo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states the immediate freeze effect, that no reads or writes are permitted while locked, that only the BEO holder can lock/unlock, and that the private key from BSP_PRIVATE_KEY is required. The only minor gap is no mention of what happens to in-flight operations or how lock state is surfaced.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the behavioral consequence, and the authorization requirement. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains 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?

For a simple single-parameter lock tool, the description covers the action, effect, authorization, and configuration requirement. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but with no output schema and a simple invocation this is a minor omission rather than a critical gap.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter 'beoId' as the BEO UUID, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter itself, but none is needed given the complete schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('freezes') and a clear resource ('the BEO'), with a strong qualifier ('Emergency lock') that distinguishes it from related operations like unlock or destroy. An agent can immediately tell this is a lock action with immediate effect.

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 phrase 'Emergency lock' implies the usage context, and the note about only the holder being able to lock or unlock gives some operational framing. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the usage guidance mostly implied rather than explicit.

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