Assembly Lock

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'Write a lockfile' is consistent with that. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the lockfile contents, the default path, and the return shape. It does not explain overwrite behavior, but the annotation covers the destructive nature.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a usage condition, default behavior, and return shape. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the explicit return shape '{lockfile, components}' is valuable. The description also covers when to call it and what the lockfile records. It could mention overwrite behavior, but the destructiveHint annotation already signals that.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the lockfile parameter's default ('<manifest>.lock.json'), but it does not explicitly describe the required manifest parameter, leaving its exact format or meaning to inference.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Write a lockfile recording each component's content hash, published-interface hash, and mate dependencies.' This clearly distinguishes it from checking or validating a lockfile, especially with siblings like assembly_lock_check.

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?

It explicitly states when to call the tool: 'Call after a clean merge.' This gives a clear usage condition, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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