assembly_lock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It explains the provenance purpose, the timing (after merge), the default filename, and the return shape. It doesn't disclose overwrite semantics or permissions, but it's strong for a 0-annotation tool.

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 dense sentences plus a return summary; every sentence adds information and the purpose 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?

For a 2-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, it's remarkably complete: purpose, timing, default, and return shape are all covered. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and overwrite behavior.

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 clarifies that 'lockfile defaults to <manifest>.lock.json' and implies manifest is the input file, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb (Write) and resource (lockfile) with the exact contents recorded (content hash, interface hash, mate dependencies). It names its sibling function (assembly_lock_check) implicitly via 'provenance baseline a coordinator uses to detect drift'.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call after a clean merge,' giving a clear precondition. This differentiates it from assembly_lock_check (which presumably verifies rather than writes), though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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