evidence_unlock

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Unlock a record' without explaining effects on locked records, error cases, permissions, or consequences of unlocking. This is minimal but not deceptive; it does not contradict any annotations.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, though it is so brief that it sacrifices useful behavioral detail.

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?

Despite the output schema and complete parameter schema, the description omits usage context, behavioral side effects, and any relation to lock operations. For a state-change tool with no annotations, this leaves the agent without enough situational understanding.

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 parameters like evidence, id, and kod are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter nuance, such as how id and kod interact or whether one is preferred, keeping this at the baseline 3.

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 ('Unlock') and resource ('a record in any AbraFlexi evidence'), which cleanly identifies the tool's function. The sibling evidence_lock reinforces the distinction, making it easy to recognize this as the reverse operation.

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 is given about when to unlock a record, how this relates to evidence_lock or evidence_lock_for_ucetni, or whether unlocking requires prior locking. The agent must infer usage context entirely from the name and sibling tools.

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