etabs_unlock_model

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds specificity by naming the concrete consequence: analysis results are deleted. It does not mention that the effect may be irreversible or that design results are also lost (that detail lives only in the schema's confirm parameter).

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 short sentences: the action and effect come first, the destructive consequence is front-loaded into the second sentence. Every clause earns its place 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?

With annotations covering safety signals, an output schema covering return data, and a fully described parameter, the description supplies the remaining essential bit: what is destroyed. The only gap is the relationship back to re-running analysis after editing.

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 100% and the single 'confirm' parameter is well documented in the schema, including the instruction to ask the user first. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but leaves no extra value.

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 verb and resource ('Unlock the model') plus the operational condition ('after analysis') and a UI anchor ('the padlock button'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name the sibling it pairs with (e.g., etabs_run_analysis) to fully differentiate the lock/unlock cycle.

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 phrase 'so it can be edited after analysis' implies the triggering situation, but there is no explicit when/when-not statement, no warning that analysis must be re-run afterwards, and no alternative named for a different workflow. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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