unlock_nodes

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

Beyond the minimal readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral details: ids that no longer exist are skipped, and the return value is { ok, affected } with the ids actually unlocked. This gives the agent insight into edge-case behavior and the response format. It could mention error handling but covers the important traits well.

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 exactly two sentences: the first front-loads the primary purpose and relationship to lock_nodes, the second adds behavioral detail and return shape. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the action, explains the purpose, reveals behavior for invalid ids, and specifies the return structure. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already provides the parameter name and a descriptive sentence ('Node ids to unlock'). The description enhances this by noting that non-existent ids are skipped and that the response reports the ids actually unlocked, giving the agent a better understanding of how the nodeIds parameter behaves.

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 opens with the specific action 'Unlock nodes' and states the purpose 'so they can be selected and edited on the canvas again'. It explicitly names itself as 'the inverse of lock_nodes', clearly differentiating it from the sibling tool and leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 tells the agent exactly when to use this tool: when nodes are locked and need to be selected/edited. It identifies the direct alternative (lock_nodes) as its inverse, and the purpose statement makes the use case explicit. No exclusions are necessary for such a straightforward reversal operation.

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