pillar_key_unlock

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 add real context: an auto-derived password is used, so no credential is required, and unlocking normally happens automatically. However, it says nothing about what unlocking permits, whether it persists across calls or is session-scoped, or what happens if it fails — gaps that matter for a security-adjacent operation.

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 two sentences are front-loaded and efficient, but the closing tip promoting `earning_opportunities` is unrelated to unlocking a key and dilutes an otherwise tight definition. Removing it would cost nothing.

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 single optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, the credential model, and the normal-case avoidance. Only the post-unlock state and failure behavior are left unexplained.

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 100% and keyId is already documented in the schema, including the 'if omitted, unlocks the first stored key' default. The description adds no further meaning about keyId, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Unlock a signing key for Pillar direct operations.' That is clearly distinct from pillar_key_generate and pillar_key_lock by implication, though it never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

'Usually not needed — tools auto-unlock on first use' is an explicit when-not-to-use signal that most definitions lack, and it points at the implicit alternative (just call the operation). It stops short of saying when it IS necessary, e.g. after a failure or explicit lock.

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