evidence_lock_for_ucetni

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'lock' and 'for the accountant' without explaining what that lock means, whether it is reversible, or what side effects it has on the record.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, and the parenthetical adds the specific operation name 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?

The description leaves meaningful gaps: it does not explain the 'lock-for-ucetni' semantics, does not distinguish from evidence_lock, and does not warn that locking a record requires either id or kod despite schema marking both optional. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the usage context is still incomplete.

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 parameters are individually documented with names and examples. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which gives a baseline of 3. It does not clarify that id or kod is the actual record identifier, even though both are optional in the 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 clear action ('Lock') and a specific resource ('a record in any AbraFlexi evidence'), and the parenthetical identifies the variant as 'lock-for-ucetni'. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling evidence_lock, so an agent cannot tell when to choose one over the other.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as evidence_lock or evidence_unlock. It neither states conditions for use nor mentions any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the intended scenario.

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