unlock_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, error conditions (e.g., what happens if the file is not locked), or permissions required. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, making it insufficiently transparent.

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, efficient sentence with zero fluff. It front-loads the core action and context, making it easy to parse quickly. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what happens on success/failure and any prerequisites. It does not mention idempotency, behavior on missing locks, or whether the lock must be owned by the caller. Given the sibling tools and the need for safe invocation, this is incomplete.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter 'path' as 'File path to unlock' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Release a lock') and the resource ('on a file'), with an explicit temporal context ('after editing'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lock_file, list_locks, and check_lock by naming the release action, making its purpose 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 gives a clear usage context: use after editing a file. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, nor does it mention alternatives (e.g., check_lock to verify a lock exists first). The guidance is implied rather than explicit, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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