Lock the vault now

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

With annotations covering safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description still adds real value: it discloses that the key is 'forgotten immediately' and that web chats in the browser extension are re-locked, i.e., the session state the caller loses. It does not mention re-unlock requirements or rate limits, but coverage is solid.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler; the consequence (key forgotten) is front-loaded ahead of the secondary effect (re-locking chats). Nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations already declaring the safety profile, the description supplies the missing behavioral context of what state is lost. Only the absence of any when-to-use steering keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; schema coverage is 100% and the empty object schema is self-explanatory. No meaningful gap exists here.

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?

States a specific action (lock the vault) plus its concrete effects: the vault key is forgotten and browser-extension web chats are re-locked. An agent can distinguish this from unlock_vault by the word 're-locks', though no sibling is named outright.

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 what happens but never says when to call this versus alternatives like hide_session, applock_status, or unlock_vault. The only usage signal is the tautological title 'Lock the vault now', which offers no conditional guidance or exclusions.

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