track_set_locked

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's purpose and provides no details about side effects, prerequisites, error behavior, or whether locking is reversible beyond the natural meaning of the words.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter setter.

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 total absence of annotations and very terse description, the agent is left without enough context about when locking is appropriate, what effects locking has, or how the operation behaves. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the behavioral and usage context is still incomplete for a tool that mutates track state.

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 0%, but the parameter names and types are self-explanatory: track_id is an integer and locked is a boolean. The description reinforces the meaning by saying 'Lock/unlock a track,' from which the polarity of the boolean can be inferred, but it adds no details about invalid IDs or edge cases.

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 operation (lock/unlock) and the resource (track), so an agent can tell this is the track-locking tool. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling tools like track_set_muted or track_set_hidden, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling track tools. It does not explain that lock prevents modifications or how it differs from hiding a track, so the agent must infer the usage context from the tool name alone.

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