map_lock_sheet

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. It usefully reveals that a locked sheet rejects all MCP mutations and disables manual UI editing, and notes the unlock behavior ('Pass locked: false to unlock'). This goes beyond the basic schema by explaining the operational consequences.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence provides essential information without any fluff. It is well-structured and concise.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key behavioral context: what locking does and how to unlock. It is adequate, though it could theoretically mention persistency or permission requirements, but those are not critical for this tool's basic 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description of 'locked' ('true = lock (default), false = unlock') essentially repeats the schema. The phrase 'Pass locked: false to unlock' adds marginal clarity, but overall the description does not significantly enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'Lock or unlock a sheet,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by being the only lock/unlock operation, and the purpose is immediately understandable.

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 explains the effect of locking ('rejects all MCP mutations and disables manual editing') which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. For a unique tool without alternatives, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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