Lock the vault

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the partial-failure contract: the key is dropped and credentials cleared even if the flush fails, and failures are reported back. Slight tension with destructiveHint=false, since clearing stored credentials could be read as destructive, but the lock is recoverable via memory_unlock and the annotation is plausible.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and action, then the failure semantics. No wasted wording.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description covers the important failure case. It could add what happens to subsequent memory operations while locked and that memory_unlock restores it, but the essentials are present.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies.

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?

States a specific multi-step action (flush, seal, drop key material) on a named resource, and the 'PANIC LOCK' framing distinguishes it immediately from memory_unlock and memory_forget.

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?

'PANIC LOCK ... now' plus 'Always available' conveys the emergency trigger condition and that the tool works even when the rest of the system is degraded. It does not explicitly contrast with memory_unlock or state when not to use it, keeping it short of a 5.

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