lock

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

The annotation only gives readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description goes far beyond that by disclosing key runtime behavior: the handle is session-scoped, session loss voids it, the server remembers handles per object, and activation refuses to run while a lock is held. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior needed to use the tool correctly.

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 text is composed of five sentences, each earning its place: purpose, handle-link, server-side memory, activation constraint, and preferred alternative. There is no filler and the core purpose is stated first.

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 a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the complete lifecycle: acquiring the lock, how the returned handle is used, session lifetime, server-side remembering, release constraint, and a pointer to a more convenient alternative. An agent can reliably invoke this tool after reading this.

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 100% and both objectUrl and accessMode have explicit descriptions. The tool description only adds contextual remarks about the returned handle and its role in write tools, but it does not add new information about the parameters themselves. Baseline of 3 is justified.

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 explicitly states the verb and resource: 'Take an edit lock on an object'. It also differentiates from editObject by noting that editObject wraps the lock and release around the change, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly says when to use: every write needs this lock, and it explicitly prefers editObject as an alternative for most cases. It adds imperative constraints like 'must be RELEASED BEFORE ACTIVATING', so the agent knows the exact conditions for this tool.

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