unlock_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries a high burden and does disclose meaningful behaviors: distances are always in millimetres regardless of document Units, dry-run previews without writing, and committing requires passing the checksum from the preview. It could still mention side effects on the component state or transaction requirements, but the safety behavior is well covered.

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 three short sentences, with the purpose stated first, followed by an important unit caveat and then the critical safety workflow. Every sentence adds value and there is no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the core workflow well. However, it lacks information on how to target components (selector/path/txid) and does not compare with lock_components, leaving it incomplete for a mutation tool with this many parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only explains dry_run and expected_sha256. The parameters path, txid, and selector are completely unexplained, which is a significant gap because the user cannot know how to select the components to unlock. The description partially compensates for the low coverage but does not do enough.

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 'Unlock selected components,' a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's function. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like lock_components and the many other component-modification tools.

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 gives a clear usage workflow: start with dry_run=true to preview, inspect the preview, then set dry_run=false with the expected_sha256. It does not mention alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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