unlockAll

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the operation affects all server locks, framing it as cleanup, and warning the agent to inspect listLocks first. readOnlyHint=false already signals mutation, so no contradiction exists; it could add notes about impact on other sessions, but the essential behavioral warning is present.

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 tightly written sentences: the first front-loads the operation and scope, the second supplies purpose and a safety hint. No filler or repeated schema information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and how to make a safe call by consulting listLocks. Nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter claims, which is appropriate.

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 opening sentence 'Release every lock this server holds' names a specific action (release) and a precise resource with scope (every lock on the server), which clearly distinguishes it from unLock (single lock) and listLocks (inspection only).

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 states an explicit use case ('clean up after an edit that was abandoned') and advises calling listLocks first to preview the effect. It does not explicitly name unLock as the alternative for releasing a single lock, but the scope is clear enough that the intended context is unambiguous.

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