swarm_unlock

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

Discloses important behavioral details beyond annotations: the locked node's inability to serve API requests or return its own key, the ability of other unlocked managers to provide the key, and the automatic resumption after unlock. This adds concrete context that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not convey.

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, starting with the purpose, then usage constraints, then parameter explanation, and finally return value. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, how to get the key, where to call it, and its return behavior. The output schema already specifies 'bool', so the description's mention of 'True after the swarm is unlocked' is sufficient and 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the key parameter: 'The swarm unlock key (from swarm_unlock_key)'. It adds meaning by linking to the source tool and clarifying the parameter's role, far exceeding the bare schema definition.

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 clearly states the verb (unlock), the resource (a manager node), and the specific context (locked after restart due to autolock). It differentiates from sibling tools like swarm_unlock_key by focusing on the action of unlocking rather than retrieving the key.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: must be called on the locked manager node directly, and instructs to retrieve the unlock key with swarm_unlock_key from an unlocked manager. It also explains the constraint that a locked node cannot serve API requests, which helps the agent choose the correct node and alternative for key retrieval.

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