force_unlock_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It only states 'force unlock', which implies a mutation, but does not detail side effects, permissions, or what happens internally. This is insufficient for an agent to understand all behavioral traits.

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 very concise at 8 words, front-loading the key action and purpose. It is efficient, though it sacrifices depth. No superfluous sentences.

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 simple tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context for purpose and use case but lacks details on return values or confirmation behavior. Completeness is moderate.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both job_id and reason that are clear and self-contained. The description does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Force unlock a stuck scraping job' with a verb and resource. The name is descriptive and the input schema further clarifies it's for debugging and recovery. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like cancel_scrape_job or force_unlock_stuck_jobs, though the singular job_id implies uniqueness.

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 says 'useful for debugging and recovery' and the input schema adds 'when jobs become unresponsive', providing implicit usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools like cancel_scrape_job, so guidance is minimal.

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