Lock a pane for writing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses advisory semantics, renewal by re-acquiring as the same owner, and the need to use the same owner in send_input. It does not describe behavior when the lock is already held by another owner, but covers the key ownership and lifecycle aspects.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, advisory caveat, and renewal/ownership guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and scannable.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is fairly complete for invocation. It covers the lock lifecycle, ownership, and relationship with send_input. Missing details like contention behavior or return values could be useful but aren't essential for basic usage.

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 67% (paneId and owner are described, albeit paneId minimally). The description adds significant meaning to 'owner' by defining it as the lock identity and explaining its use with send_input. This goes beyond the schema and helps correct parameter usage.

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 takes an advisory write lock on a pane, with a specific purpose (restricting send_input to the owner) and duration (until expiry or release). This distinguishes it from siblings like unlock_pane and send_input.

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 explains when to use the lock (to gain exclusive write access to send_input), clarifies that an unlocked pane is writable by anyone, and instructs to pass the same owner to send_input. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the advisory context implies appropriate usage.

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