lock_nodes

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

Annotations indicate a non-destructive mutation. The description adds value by specifying that locked nodes still render and export, that locking a parent locks descendants, and that the operation returns {ok, affected} with the ids actually locked. No contradiction with 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 two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and key effect, then adding side effects and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 the simple operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, side effects, and return format. It could be improved by mentioning error conditions (e.g., invalid node IDs) but is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'nodeIds' described as 'Node ids to lock'. The description adds behavioral context about locking descendants when a parent is included, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb 'lock' and resource 'nodes', clearly stating the purpose: prevent selection/editing on the canvas. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning reversal via 'unlock_nodes' and noting that locking a parent locks descendants, which is unique among node manipulation tools.

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 provides context with examples like 'backgrounds' and implies when to use (to prevent accidental edits), but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives beyond mentioning 'unlock_nodes'.

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