rm_lock_timesheet

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation and safety profile is covered. The description adds the lock/unlock operation and date scoping without contradicting the annotations. It does not discuss permissions or side effects, but given the annotation coverage that is acceptable.

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?

One concise sentence with the action front-loaded and the date format included inline. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 three-parameter tool with annotations covering safety traits and an output schema present, this description is nearly sufficient. It gives the core operation, the date format, and the target user. It does not provide usage alternatives, but that is already addressed under usage guidelines; operationally the definition is complete enough.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It conveys user_id ('for a user'), lock_date (with format YYYY-MM-DD and 'up to' scope), and the unlock behavior via the verb. However, it does not explicitly document the `unlock` boolean's default false behavior or the accepted user_id types, leaving a notable but not critical gap.

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 verb ('Lock or unlock') and a specific resource ('timesheet records for a user up to a specified lock date'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling timesheet tools like rm_fill_weekly_timesheet or rm_update_time_entry, which target different operations.

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 implies the intended use—changing the lock state of a user's timesheet through a date—but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool routing. An agent can infer the situation from the wording, but the definition doesn't actively steer away from related tools.

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