lock_round

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

Annotations already signal destructive and non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it explains that the operation goes through the Design Flow semantic engine, changes authoritative state, and that failures preserve the draft. This is useful behavioral detail not present in 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the most important trait, 'Authority-changing operation.' Each sentence earns its place: classification, mechanism, and failure behavior are all covered without redundancy or filler.

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?

Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the operation does, what it requires, and what happens on failure. The destructive annotation is present, and the description aligns with it. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. The schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage, and the description appropriately focuses on operation semantics rather than parameters.

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 clearly identifies a specific operation: committing owner-approved draft state and changing authoritative project state. It distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like get_state or preview_round through the 'Authority-changing operation' framing, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 states a clear precondition: 'Requires a complete valid draft.' This implies the tool should be used when an approved draft is ready to be made authoritative. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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