batch_lock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool mutates lock state on multiple nodes, but it does not explain failure behavior, whether the operation is all-or-nothing, what happens with invalid node IDs, or what the response contains. This is a meaningful 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 a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's operation and scope. Brevity is appropriate given the small, fully documented parameter set.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not mention return values, failure semantics, or how the locked boolean affects previously locked nodes. An agent would need to infer a lot of behavioral detail that is not present in either the description or structured metadata.

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 nodeIds as 'Target nodes' and locked as 'Lock state.' The description adds a small semantic link by mapping 'lock/unlock' to the boolean locked parameter, but this is already heavily implied by the schema. There is no substantial parameter information beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the specific verb 'Lock/unlock' and the resource 'multiple nodes,' making the operation and scope unambiguous. The plural scope distinguishes it from the singular sibling tool lock_node even without naming it. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 phrase 'multiple nodes' implies this tool is for batch locking/unlocking, which differentiates it from lock_node for single nodes. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or edge cases. Usage guidance is only implied, not articulated.

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