lock_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that other agents see files as unavailable and that the operation fails if any file is already locked. This provides meaningful behavioral context, though it omits details like lock duration or release mechanism.

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, front-loaded with the action and result. Every word earns its place with 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?

For a straightforward locking tool, the description covers the core purpose, effect on other agents, and failure mode. It doesn't need to explain return values (no output schema), and the sibling tools imply the broader workflow. Slight gaps like lock persistence are acceptable.

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 schema already describes both parameters (files and reason) with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It does implicitly tie the 'files' parameter to the locking behavior, but adds no extra semantic enrichment beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool locks files before modification, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself by noting the effect on other agents and the failure condition when files are already locked, setting it apart from siblings like release_files and check_locks.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('before modifying them'), providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like check_locks or release_files, but the usage timing is clear, so only a slight gap in exclusion guidance.

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