evidence_lock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the main side effect (changes are prevented) and the release condition (until unlocked). It does not mention permission requirements or what happens on already-locked records, but the core behavioral impact is transparent.

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 phrase earns its place: the target resource, the scope, and the effect are all communicated efficiently.

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 simple parameter shape, the output schema, and the presence of siblings like evidence_unlock, the description is nearly complete. It could additionally note that evidence_unlock reverses this operation, but for selecting and invoking the tool, the provided context is adequate.

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 already documents 'evidence', 'id', and 'kod' sufficiently. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond describing the action on 'a record', so it does not elevate the semantics beyond the structured 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Lock'), a clear resource ('a record in any AbraFlexi evidence'), and the intended effect ('preventing further changes until unlocked'). It distinguishes itself from obvious siblings such as evidence_unlock and evidence_lock_for_ucetni by covering any evidence rather than a specialized subset.

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 makes the core use case clear: use this when a record must be locked against further changes. It implies the complementary operation through 'until unlocked', but it does not explicitly name evidence_unlock or contrast with evidence_lock_for_ucetni, so some usage differentiation is left to inference.

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