lock

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 but offers none. It does not explain what locking does (e.g., prevents modifications, requires permissions), its effects (e.g., reversible via 'unLock'), or any constraints like rate limits. This leaves the agent with minimal actionable information.

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 with just three words, front-loading the core action without any wasted text. It is appropriately sized for such a minimal statement, though this conciseness contributes to its overall inadequacy in other dimensions.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, or output, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly in context with sibling tools.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('objectUrl' and 'accessMode'), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage by the schema alone, as the description adds no semantic value beyond it.

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 'Lock an object' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'lock', providing no additional specificity about what type of object or what locking entails. It fails to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'unLock' beyond the basic verb, offering no clarity on the resource or scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as its sibling 'unLock' or other object-management tools like 'createObject' or 'deleteObject'. The description lacks any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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