swarm_unlock

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false): it explains that a locked node cannot serve API requests, that unlocking resumes the manager automatically, and that the key must be retrieved from another unlocked manager. However, it does not mention failure modes like an incorrect key or idempotency, which would have made it more transparent.

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 description is well-structured with an opening purpose, a detailed usage paragraph, and args/returns. Every sentence adds valuable context, though the explanatory paragraph is slightly verbose. Front-loaded with the primary action, it remains clear and scannable.

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 complexity (swarm autolock and locked manager states), the description is complete: it covers the cause, prerequisites, invocation location, key retrieval method, post-unlock behavior, and return type. The output schema corroborates the bool return, so no further details are needed.

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 input schema only defines 'key' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by stating 'key - The swarm unlock key (from swarm_unlock_key)', giving the agent a clear source for the parameter value and its meaning.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Unlock a manager node that is locked after restart due to autolock being enabled.' This clearly states the action and target, and distinguishes it from siblings like swarm_unlock_key (which retrieves the key) and swarm_init/swarm_update (which control autolock).

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 provides explicit usage context: when autolock is enabled and a manager node is locked after restart. It specifies where to call the tool ('Must be called on the locked manager node directly'), how to obtain the key (via swarm_unlock_key from any unlocked manager), and explains why other managers must be used (a locked node cannot return its own key). This is exemplary guidance.

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