Unlock the vault

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that the tool is DISABLED by default and why (passphrase leakage into host context), that it is gated behind a config flag, that a two-factor vault needs a keyfile on the machine, and that siblings fail with a directed message while locked. These are non-obvious safety and prerequisite facts the annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then constraints and the gating flag; every sentence adds a distinct fact (failure mode, default state, exposure rationale, config key, param semantics, return shape) with no redundancy.

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 values needn't be explained, yet the description still notes the resulting lock state. Enablement, prerequisites, failure behavior, and security tradeoffs are all covered for a state-mutating, security-sensitive tool.

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 must carry the load and does: it identifies `passphrase` as the vault's own passphrase, specifies it is passed verbatim, and adds the external keyfile prerequisite for 2FA vaults.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Unlock the vault for this session') and immediately scopes the effect to the other memory tools, which is exactly what distinguishes it from memory_lock and the rest of the siblings.

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?

States the preferred alternative explicitly ('prefer that command on the machine') and gives the exact condition for using this tool instead (user accepts passphrase exposure, enable via settings.unlock_tool_enabled = true). No inference required.

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