nexus_lock_comment

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it states the action goes through v2 GraphQL, requires moderator permissions, and describes the return format. It says what locking does ('against further interaction') but doesn't disclose whether unlocking is possible or mention side effects like comment visibility changes.

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 concise: two lines of core action then a clear 'Returns' section. It's front-loaded with the action and scope, and every sentence is purposeful. It could omit the redundant 'via v2 GraphQL' and focus on behavior, but overall it's well-structured and brief.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with an output schema and idempotentHint, the description is complete: it covers the action, required permissions, the parameter, and the response. It doesn't need to explain return values (covered by output schema) or discuss error details since it explicitly says it returns an error string. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, with the parameter already well-documented ('Comment ID to lock'). The description reinforces the purpose but doesn't add much beyond the schema. However, it does specify that comment_id is the only argument, and the return format, which helps the agent understand the call. A modest improvement over baseline.

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 a comment') and the resource ('a comment'), distinguishes itself from sibling comment tools (like nexus_hide_comment, nexus_lock_comment_thread) by specifying it locks the comment itself, and notes it uses moderator permissions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention its relationship to sibling tools like nexus_pin_comment or nexus_remove_comment_like.

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 implies usage (lock against further interaction) and notes 'moderator permissions,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nexus_lock_comment_thread or nexus_hide_comment. There's no mention of conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and context.

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