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 fails to do so. It does not explain what 'locking' means in this context—e.g., whether it prevents modifications, requires permissions, has side effects, or affects other users. This omission is critical for a tool that likely involves state changes.

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 a single sentence, 'Lock an object', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but as per the dimension's focus, it scores high for brevity and structure.

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 complexity of a locking operation, no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this tool is severely under-documented. The description fails to provide necessary context on behavior, outcomes, or integration with sibling tools, making it inadequate for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('objectUrl' and 'accessMode'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but the schema adequately defines the parameters, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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' without specifying what type of object, what system it operates on, or what 'locking' entails. It lacks any distinguishing context from sibling tools like 'unLock', which suggests a related operation but isn't clarified here. The purpose is vague and minimally informative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'unLock' or other object-management tools in the sibling list. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or typical scenarios for locking objects, leaving usage entirely ambiguous.

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