Lock a DataLens entry

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

Annotations cover the operation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description goes further by disclosing the exact return contract (only a lock token), the obligation to retain it, and the failure semantics (423 plus holder identity and expiry when already locked). It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Two short sentences: the first is the purpose, the second is the return/error contract. Nothing is redundant and the most important fact (what you get back and why it matters) is front-loaded immediately after the purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by describing the response (token only) and the 423 already-locked case. Combined with the fully-covered input schema and annotations, this is nearly complete; only auth/permission prerequisites and the concurrency expectations around force are left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 – entry_id, force, and duration are already documented inline. The description reinforces the semantics of the response token that force/duration interact with ('keep it, extending and releasing the lock take it'), but adds no syntax or defaulting detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Lock an entry') and enumerates the resource types (dataset, chart, dashboard), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling lock-lifecycle tools datalens_entrylocks_extend and datalens_entrylocks_delete without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: locking before editing is the natural reading, and the mention that 'extending and releasing the lock take it [the token]' hints at the relationship to the extend/delete siblings. But there is no explicit 'use this when... / use X instead when...' routing, and the force-replaces-existing-lock path is only documented in the schema, not framed as a usage decision.

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