lock_memory

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation, but the description adds important behavioral scope beyond them: exactly which operations are blocked, that re-scoping still moves the memory while preserving the lock, and that delete_agent_data bypasses it entirely. It also discloses that ownership verification is enforced when agent_id is supplied — auth-relevant context the annotations do not carry.

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 main purpose and blocked operations are front-loaded, and every phrase carries useful scope information. The nested parentheticals make it denser than necessary — split into three shorter sentences, it would be easier to scan — but there is 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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, a fully documented input schema, and no output schema to explain, the description supplies the remaining behavioral contract: what the lock blocks, what still operates on the memory, and the ownership condition. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all three parameters, including agent_id's ownership-verification role and session_key's partition semantics. The description only reiterates the agent_id ownership behavior already stated in the schema and says nothing additional about session_key or memory_id, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Lock a memory') plus its immediate effect ('prevent deletion and editing'). It then explicitly names the sibling operations it blocks (delete_memory, update_memory) and the ones that still affect locked memories (migrate_channel_axis, merge_memories, delete_agent_data), so the agent can distinguish it from related tools without opening 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?

The description says exactly when to use it (to prevent deletion and editing) and gives explicit exceptions: operator re-scoping relocates the memory but keeps the lock, while delete_agent_data removes it. By naming delete_memory and update_memory as the alternatives this tool supersedes, it leaves the selection condition unambiguous.

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