swarm_unlock

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

Beyond the basic annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses key behavioral traits: a locked node cannot serve API requests or return its own key, other unlocked managers can still serve the key, and the manager resumes automatically after unlocking. It also explains the prerequisite (autolock enabled) and the consequence of restart. This is rich context that the annotations do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides necessary context in a logically structured flow. Every sentence adds value: the after-restart scenario, the method to get the key, the calling constraint, and the post-condition. The args/returns lines are clear and free of fluff.

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 moderate complexity and simple output schema (bool), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, prerequisites, how to get the key, where to call it, behavior while locked, and what happens after. No significant gaps remain.

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 parameter 'key' is fully explained in the description: it is the swarm unlock key, and the description explicitly points to swarm_unlock_key as the source, with guidance to store it securely. This goes beyond the bare schema definition (which only says 'string') and compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clear, specific statement: 'Unlock a manager node that is locked after restart due to autolock being enabled.' This uses a distinct verb (unlock) and resource (manager node), and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like swarm_unlock_key (which retrieves the key) and swarm_init/swarm_update (which configure 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: after a manager node restarts with autolock enabled. It also names the alternative for obtaining the key (swarm_unlock_key) and gives a critical usage constraint: 'Must be called on the locked manager node directly.' This provides clear context and differentiates from related swarm operations.

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