Acquire an exclusive lock on a file before editing to prevent conflicts from concurrent modifications in a shared collaborative workspace.
Acquire an exclusive lock on a file before editing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | File path to lock | |
| reason | No | Brief description of what you plan to do |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (acquire an exclusive lock) without explaining what happens if the lock is already held, whether it blocks, what the side effects are, or that it should be followed by unlock_file. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action without waste. It is appropriately short, though it could benefit from a brief note about lock release or contention behavior without sacrificing conciseness.
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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return value, failure modes (e.g., lock already taken), or the expectation to later unlock. Given the sibling unlock_file exists, a minimal mention of this would improve completeness. The description leaves an agent guessing about critical call outcomes.
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 100%, with both 'path' and 'reason' already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about these parameters (e.g., format, constraints, or examples). Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 clearly states the action ('Acquire an exclusive lock on a file') and the context ('before editing'). It is specific and distinguishes from read/write operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_lock or list_locks. The resource and purpose are unambiguous.
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 implies when to use this tool ('before editing') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. It doesn't reference sibling tools such as check_lock (for checking status) or unlock_file (for releasing), leaving some inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.