Lock a ChatGPT / Claude / Gemini web chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the post-condition (chat is removed from the sidebar), what a user sees on access (lock screen), and the reversal path (Touch ID or password). It stops short of stating whether hiding itself requires authentication, whether it is idempotent, or any error behavior when the chat_id is unknown.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the effect of the operation is front-loaded before the parameter hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what happens and how to reverse it, which is what an agent mainly needs. It lacks prerequisite/auth context and any pointer to the unlock/restore siblings, leaving a small but real gap.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 'current' sentinel and the ambiguity rule for 'site'. The description restates the 'current' usage but adds no new format, conflict, or edge-case semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource (lock a web chat) plus the mechanism ('tells the AppLock browser extension') and the visible effect (disappears from sidebar, lock screen). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts with the similarly-named sibling hide_session, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It gives one concrete invocation hint — use chat_id "current" for the open chat — which is actionable. However, it never says when to prefer this over hide_session, nor any prerequisites (e.g., vault/password configured, chat must exist in list_browser_chats) or when-not conditions.

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