lock_article

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the primary behavioral effect (protect from rotation cleanup). However, it does not mention any side effects, required permissions, or reversibility, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose and parameter. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter adequately. It could mention the inverse operation (unlock) for better context among siblings, but overall it is sufficiently 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?

The description provides a brief explanation for the sole parameter (article_id: 'ID of the article to lock'), adding basic meaning beyond the schema's type and title. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more detail (e.g., format, source) would be beneficial.

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 states the action 'lock' on resource 'article' with a specific purpose: 'to protect it from rotation cleanup'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like unlock_article.

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 implies usage when protection from rotation cleanup is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., unlock_article, pin_article). No when-not guidance is provided.

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