unlock_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one real behavioral fact beyond the schema — that the call reports whether the release actually succeeded, hinting that unlocking can fail — but it omits ownership/permission requirements, idempotency on an already-unlocked file, and what the failure report looks like.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the outcome guarantee. "Reports the truth about" is slightly informal phrasing, but no sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive cleanup tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. The only meaningful gap is the absence of permission/ownership and failure-mode context that annotations would normally supply.

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?

There is only one parameter, path, and its schema description ("File path to unlock", 100% coverage) already covers it. The description adds nothing about path format, relative vs absolute resolution, or what happens if the path is not currently locked, so it sits at the baseline rather than above it.

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: "Release a lock on a file." Against siblings like lock_file, check_lock, and list_locks, the acquisition/release distinction is immediately obvious, though the description never names those siblings to reinforce the contrast.

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?

"after editing" implies the lifecycle position where this applies, which is genuine context. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance, does not mention prerequisites such as holding the lock yourself, and does not point at check_lock or list_locks as verification alternatives.

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