Lock or unlock card

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

The only annotation is readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden and mostly fails: it does not say whether locking is immediate, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or what side effects (e.g., blocked transactions) occur. 'Lock/unlock' merely restates the mutation already implied by the annotation.

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 zero waste and the operation front-loaded. It is terse but not padded; the terseness is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the two-parameter schema is fully documented, making this a low-complexity tool. Still, for a financial card lock the description leaves out the operational meaning of locking and any auth or reversibility notes.

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 both parameters (cardUid, enabled) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description maps lock/unlock onto the enabled boolean but adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's own explanation.

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 pair and resource: enable/disable (lock/unlock) a card. It is clearly distinguishable from the list-oriented siblings (cards_list, accounts_list), though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any of them, which is a minor omission given no other card-mutation tools appear in the sibling set.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note on reversibility or authorization. It simply restates the operation with no usage context.

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