take_over_page_lock

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it explicitly discloses the destructive side effect: 'The previous holder is bounced to read-only and may lose unsaved work.' It also names the permission requirement, giving the agent essential behavioral context beyond a generic lock-operation statement.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action and benefit, the warning and confirmation gate, and the permission requirement. The core purpose is front-loaded, with no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter, side-effectful tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, prerequisites, and the key human-impact warning. An agent has enough information to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 only parameter, pageId, is already fully described in the schema ('Page id whose edit lock to take over'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description reinforces that the operation targets a page but adds no new parameter-level syntax or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and precise resource: 'Take over the edit lock on a page another editor is holding open.' It also states the operational benefit—avoiding PAGE_LOCKED on subsequent writes—and clearly distinguishes this lock-management tool from the sibling page-editing tools.

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 gives the exact trigger: a lock held by another editor is causing write calls like publish_page, update_page_blocks, or update_page_layout to be refused. It also adds the confirmation gate ('only call after the user confirms') and the required permission, telling the agent both when and whether it is allowed to act.

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