proj_lock_designator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly explains the core effect (designators preserved during annotation operations) and documents the return payload, but does not address permission requirements, error behavior for missing designators, or other edge cases.

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 front-loads the purpose, then uses clean Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information, and it avoids unnecessary repetition despite the presence of an output schema.

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 tool, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, behavior, both parameters, the special 'all' case, and return fields. It could strengthen cross-tool guidance by referencing proj_annotate directly, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 compensate, and it does: it explains the designator format with examples ('U1', 'R3') and the special 'all' value, plus the boolean lock parameter and its default. Both parameters are fully documented beyond the raw 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 and resource: lock or unlock component designators to prevent re-annotation. The effect is clear, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools like proj_annotate or sch_increment_designators, so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

It gives a useful condition for designator='all' and explains that locked designators are preserved during annotation, but it does not state when to use this tool versus proj_annotate or other designator tools. Alternative selection and exclusions are left to inference.

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