Lock IRIs to prevent their removal during plan/apply, with locked entities reported as violations in the plan output.
Lock IRIs to prevent removal during plan/apply. Locked IRIs will show as violations in plan output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iris | Yes | IRIs to lock (prevent removal) | |
| reason | No | Reason for locking |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that locked IRIs prevent removal and appear as violations in plan output. Missing information on reversibility or side effects, but the main effect is clear.
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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No redundant words, every sentence adds value.
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, so description should explain return values but does not. Captures key behavioral aspect (violations) but lacks details on reversibility, permissions, or what the function returns. Sibling context is clear but tool could be more complete.
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?
Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds context about purpose and outcome, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states action ('Lock IRIs'), purpose ('prevent removal during plan/apply'), and describes output behavior ('show as violations in plan output'). Distinguishes from siblings like onto_plan and onto_apply.
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?
Implies usage before plan/apply, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. No mention of alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.