objects_lock

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety burden is partly carried. The description adds nothing beyond them — it does not say whether locks persist across sessions, whether replacing an existing lock is possible, what permissions are needed, or what gets destroyed, which matters for a flagged-destructive mutation.

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?

A single short sentence with the operation front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of specification rather than from tight editing.

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 destructive, non-idempotent batch mutation with no output schema and weak parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent has no information on effect scope, lock semantics, or response behavior before performing a flagged-destructive call.

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 only 33%; table_id and the objects item type are documented in the schema, but the top-level `locked` and `objects` have no descriptions. The prose at least implies both required parameters ('Lock or unlock' → locked, 'a list of objects' → objects), but it does not clarify the boolean direction (true = lock) or the 500-item cap.

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 gives a verb ('Lock or unlock') and a resource ('a list of objects'), so the basic operation is identifiable, but it is close to a restatement of the tool name objects_lock. It does not explain what 'locking' means in this domain (edit protection? transactional lock? exclusivity?) nor differentiate the operation from siblings like objects_patch or objects_move.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text when locking is appropriate over, say, patching a field, nor when to omit table_id.

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