unLock

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 doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the expected outcome is. The single phrase 'Unlock an object' reveals nothing about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action implied by its name.

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 maximally concise with only three words. While it's severely under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured—every word earns its place by conveying the core action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary complexity.

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 that this is a mutation tool (unlocking implies state change) with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what unlocking means in this context, what the consequences are, what errors might occur, or what the tool returns. For a tool that likely interacts with a locking system, this level of documentation is insufficient.

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, with clear documentation for both 'objectUrl' and 'lockHandle' parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Unlock an object' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'unLock'. It specifies the verb 'unlock' and resource 'object', but provides no additional context about what type of object, what unlocking entails, or how it differs from other tools. Compared to sibling tools like 'lock' (which likely creates locks) and 'deleteObject' (which destroys objects), this description fails to distinguish the tool's specific purpose.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that an object must be locked first), doesn't reference the sibling 'lock' tool, and gives no context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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