bsp_unlock_beo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the private-key requirement and the locked-state precondition, but it does not describe side effects, failure behavior, or whether the operation is reversible, which would be valuable for a state-changing action.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds the essential authorization requirement, earning its place.

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 tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It includes the critical precondition and private-key requirement, though a brief mention of expected outcome or failure conditions would make it fully robust.

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 covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description ('The BEO UUID to unlock'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('unlock') and resource ('previously locked BEO'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bsp_lock_beo and bsp_destroy_beo because it names the inverse state change.

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 clearly indicates the precondition ('previously locked BEO') and the authorization requirement ('requires the BEO holder's private key'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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