datalens_entrylocks_extendExtend a DataLens entry lock by supplying its lock token and new duration; the response returns the updated expiration time.
Hold a lock longer; the reply says when it expires now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The token of the lock and its new terms. | |
| 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 state the tool is non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds one behavioral detail—that the reply reports the new expiration time—but does not cover permissions, side effects, or other operational constraints.
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 short clauses with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded.
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 annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters, the main remaining gaps are usage context and richer behavioral details. The single sentence about the reply adds some value but leaves the definition minimally viable.
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 schema already documents entry_id, lockToken, duration, and force. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given the high coverage.
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 action ('hold a lock longer') and the title reinforces it as extending a DataLens entry lock. It is clear enough to identify the operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling lock operations like create or delete.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as creating or deleting locks. The agent is left to infer the context from the name and title alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.