Lock or unlock compendium

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint: which compendiums may be touched depends on module settings. It does not contradict any annotation and gives useful context beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the important scope constraint is stated immediately after.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and relevant annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose and the key eligibility constraint, though it does not state what happens when a disallowed packId is passed.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully (packId as the compendium ID, locked as true/false). The description adds a relevant constraint about which packIds are eligible, but it does not add syntax, format, or detailed parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb (lock/unlock) and a specific resource (compendium), and the action is clearly distinct from sibling tools like delete-compendium, create-compendium, or organize-compendium. The added module-settings constraint further clarifies scope beyond a bare restatement of the title.

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 gives clear context about when the tool is permitted to act: every compendium by default, or only those on the release list if configured. It does not name an alternative tool, but no sibling provides lock/unlock functionality, so the usage context is sufficient.

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