unlock_phone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the broad outcome (all registered phones become usable) and the triggering action (stop working on one phone), but it does not mention reversibility, whether devices are disconnected, or what happens to in-flight operations.

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 compact sentence and is not padded. It is slightly awkwardly worded, but it earns its place by conveying the essential action and outcome.

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 zero-argument state-change tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the trigger and the intended effect on registered phones. Some ambiguity remains about the exact scope and mechanics of 'unlocking,' but the low complexity makes this a minor gap.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the schema is complete by definition and no additional parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly adds no parameter details.

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 concrete state change: stop devoting work to a single phone so that all registered phones become usable again. This is more specific than the tool name and implicitly contrasts with use_phone or lock_phone, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or use the word 'unlock'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus lock_phone, use_phone, or disconnect_wireless. The phrase 'so all registered phones are usable again' implies a post-session release, but no conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are given.

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