lock_project_with_collaborators

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

The description states the tool locks the project, which is a behavioral trait. Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, which is consistent. However, the description does not detail locking semantics (e.g., concurrency, unlocking) or side effects. The addition is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main action and then add necessary context. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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?

The description covers the purpose and usage context well, but lacks parameter usage hints (e.g., typical value for codeSourceId) and details about locking behavior. Given the output schema exists, return values are covered, but for a tool with one parameter object, more guidance would improve completeness.

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 description adds no information about the parameters beyond what the input schema provides. The schema includes descriptions for 'projectId' and 'codeSourceId', but the tool description does not elaborate or give usage hints. With 0% schema description coverage on the main parameter, the description should compensate.

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 (lock), object (project), and purpose (to edit). It also provides context about when it's necessary (collaborators or LLM editing), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_project or read_project.

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 explicitly mentions the conditions when this tool should be used (project has collaborators or LLM editing). This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it.

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