lock_backup

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

The description adds useful context beyond the all-false annotations by indicating the tool modifies state (locking) and is not destructive (prevents deletion). However, it omits details about reversibility, idempotency, or what happens if the backup is already locked, leaving some ambiguity about side effects.

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 extremely concise—one sentence stating the core purpose and a second short sentence providing a prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and the primary action is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose and access requirements but leaves gaps: no explanation of parameters, no mention of success/failure indicators, and no behavioral details like reversibility. Given no annotations or output schema, these omissions reduce completeness.

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 input schema provides no descriptions for backup_id or server_id (0% coverage), and the description only mentions 'a backup' generically. It does not clarify the role of server_id or any parameter formatting requirements, leaving the agent to guess at parameter semantics.

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 'lock' with a clear resource ('a backup') and the purpose ('against accidental deletion'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_backup, create_backup, and backup_download, which have different actions and outcomes.

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 directly states the intended use case (preventing accidental deletion) and a prerequisite ('Requires backup access'). While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool versus other backup-related operations.

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