unlock_records

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

It discloses credit costs, approval requirements, idempotency key reuse, and zero-cost cases, adding substantive context beyond destructive=true and idempotent=true. It still does not explain what unlocking does to the records or whether access is permanent, but annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 credit-spend warning is front-loaded, and each sentence covers a distinct operational concern: cost, approval, idempotent retry, and zero-cost exceptions. There is no filler.

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 high-stakes credit-spending tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description covers approval and idempotency but leaves the selection model and several parameters opaque. An agent could understand the safety constraints but not confidently construct the exact selection.

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?

With 0% schema descriptions across 8 parameters, the description only clarifies maxCredits, idempotencyKey, and kind indirectly. releaseId, filters, ordinals, quantity, and confirmCreditSpend remain unexplained, which is insufficient for a destructive credit-spending operation.

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 conveys that the tool spends credits to unlock agent/brokerage records, but never states the operation in a direct verb+resource phrase, leaving the actual unlock action implicit. It also does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as preview_records or owned_records, so selection relies heavily on the tool name.

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?

It gives a prerequisite (user approval for the exact selection and maxCredits) and retry guidance, but does not say when to choose this over preview_records or owned_records. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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