lock_backup

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

Adds real value beyond annotations by disclosing the WISP_ALLOW_BACKUPS capability requirement, feature-gated support, and that backup state is mutated. However, with idempotentHint=false and no boolean lock parameter in the schema, the description never explains whether repeated calls toggle or set state — a meaningful behavioral ambiguity the description should resolve.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and prerequisites trailing; nothing is wasted. The phrase "when supported" is slightly vague but still load-bearing.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent) and the schema is fully documented, so little is required. Still, for a mutation tool with no output schema, the description leaves unanswered what state the backup ends up in and how to lock versus unlock, which is the main residual 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are self-documenting, so the baseline applies. The description mentions only "backup ID" and adds no meaning beyond the schema; notably it does not clarify that the desired lock state is not parameterized at all, which is the thing an agent most needs to know here.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Change the panel lock state for a backup ID"), which clearly separates it from siblings like delete_backup, create_backup, and list_backups. It does not, however, state whether the call locks, unlocks, or toggles, which leaves the core action slightly under-determined.

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 an explicit use case ("protect a backup from accidental deletion") and a prerequisite gate ("requires WISP_ALLOW_BACKUPS"), plus a qualifier that it only works "when supported". It omits any mention of alternatives or the inverse operation, so an agent must infer there is no separate unlock path.

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