Lock vault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a mere action verb by revealing a key side effect: clearing the derived key from memory for this session. This adds meaningful context about session-scoped behavior and memory impact, though it stops short of detailing reversibility or effects on other vault data.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Locks a vault') and appends a critical behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, with zero redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the action and a key behavioral consequence. The session-scoped caveat is useful, though it could slightly benefit from mentioning whether the lock is temporary or affects other sessions. Overall, it is adequately complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'vault' with the description 'Registered vault name', so the description does not need to add much. However, the tool description itself offers no extra clarification about the parameter, keeping it at baseline without enhancing meaning 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 uses the specific verb 'Locks' with the resource 'vault' and adds a distinctive behavioral detail: it clears the derived key from memory for this session. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, especially unlock_vault, 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 conveys when to use the tool by stating its action ('Locks a vault'), and the sibling list includes unlock_vault, implying this is the inverse operation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where locking is appropriate or discouraged, leaving usage guidance largely implicit.

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