pillar_key_lock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: sensitive key material is wiped from memory. It omits other traits an agent would want — what state the key is left in, whether re-unlocking is required afterward, and whether re-locking needs credentials — so the disclosure is partial for a security-sensitive mutation.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded with the effective action. The second sentence is an unrelated cross-sell for earning_opportunities that does not help an agent decide whether or how to lock the key, so it dilutes rather than serves the definition.

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 no-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and its security effect, which is the essential part. It leaves open the post-lock state and the relationship to the other lock/unlock tools (wallet_lock, lightning_lock, pillar_key_unlock), so it is adequate but not complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema to under-specify and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, which is appropriate here since none exist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lock the signing key") plus the concrete effect ("clearing sensitive data from memory"), which is far more than the name alone conveys. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as pillar_key_unlock or wallet_lock, so an agent must infer that relationship.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name's inverse relationship to pillar_key_unlock; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The second sentence is a promotional tip pointing at earning_opportunities and gives no guidance about locking at all.

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