lock_content_control

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It states that locking prevents editing but does not explain the differences between the three lock types (sdtLocked, contentLocked, sdtContentLocked). It also does not mention if the operation is reversible, destructive, or requires specific permissions.

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 very concise at two short sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. However, it could be better structured by using bullet points or separating parameter descriptions more clearly.

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?

Given the complexity of locking content controls, no annotations, and an existing output schema (unused), the description is insufficient. It omits return value details, edge cases, and behavioral nuances of lock types. More context is needed for agents to safely invoke this tool.

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 add value. It provides basic explanations for both parameters: 'Tag name of the control to lock' and 'Lock type — sdtLocked|contentLocked|sdtContentLocked'. This is more informative than the schema alone, but lacks details on what each lock type does, which is critical for correct usage.

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 verb 'Lock' and the resource 'content control' with the goal 'to prevent editing'. It specifies the key parameters (tag and lock type). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_content_control_value' or 'update_content_control' which might also affect locking behavior.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for locking, or when not to use it. Agents have no context to decide if this tool is appropriate versus other content control tools.

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