Unlock the vault

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

The description reveals important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the tool is disabled by default, using it exposes the passphrase to the host context, it requires the vault passphrase verbatim, two-factor vaults additionally need a keyfile, and it returns the resulting lock state. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction with the annotations.

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 densely informative yet compact. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, security warning and disablement, parameter semantics with two-factor caveat, and return value. The primary action is front-loaded, and the risk note follows naturally without bloat.

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 why the tool exists, when to avoid it, how to enable it, what the parameter means, special two-factor requirements, and the return value. It also ties the unlock state to sibling tool behavior. Nothing important is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It directly explains that `passphrase` is the vault's own passphrase, must be provided verbatim, and notes the keyfile requirement for two-factor vaults. This is exactly the kind of detail the raw schema lacks.

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 and resource: 'Unlock the vault for this session so the other memory tools can use it again.' It clearly distinguishes the action from sibling tools like memory_lock by describing the session-level unlock effect and the failure behavior of locked tools.

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 tells the agent when to avoid using this tool: it is DISABLED by default, passing the passphrase through the agent exposes it, and the command `compartment unlock` is preferred on the machine. It also states the exact condition for enabling tool use via settings.unlock_tool_enabled = true, which is strong usage guidance.

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