Claim paths you are about to edit

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

With no annotations, the description effectively covers key behavioral traits: the lock action, scope (directory locks cover subpaths), return value (granted vs conflicts), and required conflict response. It lacks details on async/blocking behavior, authentication, or rate limits, but covers the essential operational behavior well.

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 three sentences long, no filler, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds essential information: what it does, scope, and what to do on conflict. Ideal length for a straightforward locking tool.

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 no output schema, the description briefly notes the return format ('granted vs conflicts') but does not detail the exact structure or error cases (e.g., network failure, already locked by same agent). The sibling context helps disambiguate, but the description leaves moderate gaps in what the agent can expect as a response.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description only elaborates on 'paths' (files/directories to lock). It does not explain the 'note' or 'task_id' parameters, leaving their purpose unclear. The agent would need to infer or guess their meaning, which is insufficient for a tool with 3 parameters.

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 verb 'Lock' and the resource 'files or directories you are about to edit'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like release_paths and check_paths by specifying the action of claiming/locking for exclusive editing.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('before editing'), what to avoid ('if a path is held by the other agent, do NOT edit it'), and provides alternatives ('pick different work or send a note asking for a hand-off'). No ambiguity.

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