Lock elements

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it explains the consequential effect (blocks edit/move/delete) and that the effect is reversible via unlock_elements, plus the return shape. This meaningfully extends the annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and effect, then the return contract. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, resulting state, reversibility, and return format. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, including a detailed includeGroupMembers description and the group-GUID semantics for elements, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Locks) and resource (elements), anchors it to the UI path (Edit > Locking > Lock), and explicitly names the counterpart tool unlock_elements, distinguishing it from siblings. An agent can tell it apart from unlock_elements without reading either schema.

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 routes to unlock_elements for the reverse operation and states the condition (locked elements cannot be edited, moved or deleted until unlocked), which gives clear context for when this state is meaningful. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use rule, but the semantics are unambiguous.

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