lock_nodes

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: locking a parent locks descendants, locked nodes still render/export, and the operation is reversible. It also discloses the return value. This is especially valuable given readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which confirm the description's claims.

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-loaded with purpose, then key behaviors, then return value. Every sentence earns its place, with exact phrasing and 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?

For a single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, reversibility, and return format. The annotations complement the safety profile, making this fully self-contained for an agent to decide and invoke.

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 schema already covers the only parameter (nodeIds) with a clear description. The tool description does not add new parameter-level semantics, though it does explain that providing a parent id will affect descendants, which is a behavioral consequence rather than parameter formatting.

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 tool's function: locking nodes prevents selection and editing on the canvas. It differentiates from siblings by specifying scope (canvas interaction only), noting that locks are reversed by unlock_nodes, and explaining the parent-child descendant behavior.

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 implies when to use the tool (e.g., for backgrounds) and clarifies that it only affects canvas interaction, so users can infer it is not for hiding or exporting. It references the companion unlock_nodes, providing a clear contrast, but does not explicitly state 'use this when/not when' conditions.

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