unlock_nodes

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by explaining the inverse relationship with lock_nodes, the skip behavior for nonexistent IDs, and the return format. This gives the agent a clear picture of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 long, with the core action and relation to sibling in the first sentence, and handling of edge cases and return value in the second. Every sentence is essential and there is no fluff.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the action, relationship to siblings, parameter behavior (skip nonexistent), and return format ({ ok, affected }). No additional information is needed.

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 parameter 'nodeIds' with a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining that nonexistent IDs are skipped, which is a semantic nuance not present in the schema alone. This helps the agent understand the parameter's behavior.

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 action 'unlock nodes' and defines the resource as 'nodes on the canvas'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'lock_nodes' by calling itself the inverse, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage context by stating it is the inverse of lock_nodes, implying it should be used after nodes have been locked. It also explains that 'Ids that no longer exist are skipped', which helps the agent understand edge cases. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the positive guidance is sufficient.

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