Unlock elements

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the safety burden is covered. The description adds per-guid outcome semantics ('{guid, locked: false} | {guid, error}'), signalling partial failure is possible, plus the layer caveat — real information beyond the annotations, though it doesn't state auth/reservation prerequisites.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste: capability first, then the trigger and the exclusion, then the return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by specifying the return shape. Combined with the sibling-routing guidance and fully covered parameters, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% and both parameters (elements, includeGroupMembers) are fully documented in-schema, including the Suspend Groups subtlety. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Unlocks locked elements') and anchors it to the UI path (Edit > Locking > Unlock). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling lock_elements and from the layer-state tools it explicitly excludes.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call this when another tool reports is locked') and an explicit when-not with the correct alternative ('Elements on a LOCKED LAYER need the layer unlocked instead (layer attribute tools)'). Nothing is left to inference.

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