lock_footprint

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

The description discloses that the tool prevents accidental movement, which is the primary behavioral effect. However, with no annotations provided, it does not reveal any additional behavioral traits such as permissions required, reversibility, or side effects like selection changes. It achieves minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but at the expense of missing essential parameter explanations. While concise, it is not appropriately sized because it lacks content that would help the agent use the tool correctly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description should provide sufficient context to use it correctly. It does not explain the parameters or usage context, making it incomplete for an agent to determine how to invoke it without additional knowledge.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema for the two parameters (locked and reference). It fails to explain what 'reference' refers to or how the boolean 'locked' maps to lock/unlock, leaving the agent without necessary context.

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 clearly states the tool locks or unlocks a footprint to prevent accidental movement. The verb 'lock or unlock' and the resource 'footprint' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like lock_shape and lock_dimension which act on different objects.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tools imply different object targets, the description does not provide any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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