Set Test Run Lock

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it states the read-only consequence of locking, that results and test-case edits are blocked, the one-run-per-call cardinality, and a concrete rate limit of 10 requests/second. It omits auth/permission requirements and behavior when locking an already-locked run, which are the remaining gaps for a mutation tool.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then the workflow rationale, then operational constraints. Every sentence carries information an agent needs — consequences, use case, batching, rate limit — with 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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the safety profile (read-only side effect), the operational envelope (rate limit, single-run scope), and the workflow intent. It stops short of error/edge-case behavior — e.g., unlocking a run that isn't locked, or whether unlock fully restores editability — which leaves a small but real 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both 'lock' (boolean toggle) and 'test_run' (ID or name) are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the cardinality constraint ('one test run per call'), which is modest added value rather than new semantics for either parameter.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Locks or unlocks a test run.' It also clarifies a boundary against the likely-confusable sibling update_test_run by noting that locking is 'otherwise a manual action in the Tuskr UI,' implying this dedicated tool is the only path for lock state. An agent can distinguish it from update_test_run, archive_test_runs, and copy_test_run without reading 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?

Gives a concrete usage context — 'lets an automated workflow seal a run once execution is complete' — rather than a bare when-to-use. It also implies when-not: once locked, results can't be recorded and cases can't be edited, so it shouldn't be called mid-execution. It never explicitly names update_test_run as the alternative for other mutations, which keeps it below a 5.

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