lock_parameter

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 does state that the tool is MUTATING, operates in a single undo group, and that the response passes through apply_response_cap. However, it does not mention required permissions, side effects, or what happens if the parameter is not found or already in the desired state. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with three short sentences each adding distinct information. There is no redundant wording. It could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately concise for the content it covers.

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?

Given the tool has four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of ctx, path, or parameter, nor does it describe the return value or error behavior. The tool is more complex than the description acknowledges.

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 has no descriptions for its four parameters (0% coverage). The description only clarifies that 'locked' accepts a boolean, but it leaves ctx, path, and parameter unexplained. This is minimal compensation for the low schema coverage and does not enable an agent to correctly fill all parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to toggle the lock state of a parameter ('切换 parm 锁定状态'). It uses a specific verb ('toggle') and a specific resource ('parm lock state'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools beyond the unique action, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools that might be more appropriate. The only context is the tool's own description, so an agent gets no usage direction beyond the obvious.

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