datalens_entrylocks_deleteRelease a DataLens entry lock you hold, or force-release another editor's lock. Unlocked entries return 404.
Release a lock; with force it releases a lock another editor holds.
An entry that is not locked answers 404.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes | The token of the lock, or `force` for another's lock. | |
| entry_id | Yes | Entry id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.122.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: that `force` overrides another editor's lock and that an unlocked entry returns 404, both useful beyond the 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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the edge-case behavior (404) packed in without filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the destructive force path and the unlocked-entry error, which is most of what an agent needs. It could still note permission requirements or what a successful release returns, but it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's terse "Whether to force lock deletion" by explaining the consequence of `force` (removing another editor's lock), giving real semantic value.
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 ("Release a lock") and qualifies scope with `force`. It clearly separates this from the sibling lock operations (create/extend) by describing what release does and what happens when the entry is not locked.
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?
It gives a clear condition that selects the `force` mode (releasing a lock another editor holds), which is actionable guidance. It does not, however, name or contrast against the sibling tools such as datalens_entrylocks_extend, so the when-to-use-this-vs-alternative aspect is only partially covered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.