lock_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the ownership verification behavior triggered when agent_id is supplied, which is a conditional authorization rule not expressed in the schema. It omits failure modes (already locked, non-owner caller), keeping it from a 5.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the primary effect front-loaded ahead of the conditional ownership note. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 3-parameter, 1-required mutation tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the essential state change and the conditional authorization rule. What is missing is error/edge behavior, such as what happens if the memory is already locked or the caller is not the owner.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of meaning for agent_id by tying it to enforced ownership, but says nothing extra about memory_id or the unusual session_key partition semantics, so it does not rise above baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Lock a memory') and states the concrete effect ('prevent deletion and editing'), so the agent knows exactly what state change results. It does not, however, name or contrast with the obvious sibling unlock_memory, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 intended use is implied by the effect clause — call this when you want a memory protected from modification — but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisite conditions, and no mention of unlock_memory as the inverse operation. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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