lock

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the concrete mechanics: keys are wiped from memory and the Finder mount closes. It also explicitly reassures that 'No file is changed' and 'locking a locked vault is harmless', which corroborates rather than merely restates the idempotency hint.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, and every sentence carries information. It is slightly run-on, packing side effects, timing, and return behavior into a dense block, but nothing 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 zero-required-parameter, idempotent vault operation with an output schema present, the description covers scope, side effects, timing, safety, and idempotency. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and return values are handled by the output schema.

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 description coverage is 100% and the parameter already documents 'Leave empty to lock every open vault', so the description only restates that semantics. No additional syntax, format, or naming detail is added beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Lock one vault... or every open vault') with the exact scope switch for the empty case. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling 'unlock' and from the file-mutation siblings, which are unrelated operations.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('Use it when the task is done'), names the competing mechanism ('vaults also lock by themselves after some minutes without use'), and points to the counterpart action ('unlock asks the user to open it again'). The agent has everything needed to decide whether to call this or rely on auto-lock.

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