plasticity_set_locked

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorld=false), so the description's added value is semantic: it explains that locked geometry stays readable but resists manual selection and editing. That is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it omits the concurrency/revision behavior and the fact that locked=false reverses the state.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the operation and target scope front-loaded and the state semantics following. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers intent and lock semantics but leaves the required revision parameter and multi-target combination rules undocumented. Minimum viable, but an agent could still call it incorrectly.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly accounts for bodyIds/instanceIds/referenceMeshIds/groupIds via the stated target types, but says nothing about the required 'revision' string (a non-obvious concurrency token), nor whether multiple target arrays may be combined in one call.

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 names a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('native Plasticity lock state') and enumerates the exact target types (bodies, linked instances, reference meshes, groups), which cleanly separates it from siblings like plasticity_set_visibility. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 list of supported target types implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance, no note on preconditions (e.g., needing a current selection or fetched IDs first), and no mention of the revision/optimistic-concurrency requirement.

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