unLock

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important behavior: the server records a lock per object, the handle can be omitted to use the recorded lock, activation is blocked until the lock is released, and deletion does not implicitly unlock objects. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs and is not available from readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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 three sentences are dense but purposeful: one states the core action, one explains handle behavior, and one warns about sequencing and deletion. The last sentence is a bit long, but every clause earns its place and no filler is present.

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 the tool's modest complexity, the description covers the required objectUrl, the optional lockHandle behavior, the relationship to activation, and the deletion caveat. It does not need to describe return values, and the absence of an output schema is acceptable because the key operational risks and sequencing are fully disclosed.

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%, and the description largely restates the lockHandle semantics already present in the schema: pass the handle or omit it to use the server-recorded one. It adds the activation context but does not substantially enrich the meaning of objectUrl beyond what the schema already says, so the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden.

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 opens with 'Release an edit lock,' a specific verb and resource, so the agent immediately knows the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool unlockAll, though the singular 'an edit lock' and the lock-handle context imply one object at a time.

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 gives clear operational context: use it before activation, because activation refuses while the session holds the lock. It also contrasts with deleteObject, noting that deleting an object does NOT release the lock and that deleteObject releases it for you, which helps route the agent away from an incorrect alternative.

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