memvid_lock

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), which the description aligns with by describing encryption without implying deletion. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it doesn't mention side effects like file creation, password handling security, or error conditions.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Encrypt a memory file') and specifies the output format. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on encryption behavior, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying encryption uses a password (mentioned in the schema as 'required for non-interactive use'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 ('Encrypt') and resource ('a memory file'), specifying it creates a .mv2e encrypted file. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'memvid_unlock' (decryption) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other file operations like 'memvid_export' or 'memvid_verify_single_file'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, use cases, or when other tools like 'memvid_unlock' (decryption) or 'memvid_export' (exporting) might be more appropriate.

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