lock_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that locking entities prevents auto-normalization and merging, which is key. However, it does not mention reversibility, idempotency, or any side effects beyond the lock/unlock action.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary effect. It clearly separates the purpose, arguments, and returns. However, the returns section is very brief ('操作结果') and could be improved.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a key behavioral consequence. However, it lacks details on error conditions, required permissions, or what happens when unlocking an entity that isn't locked.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that entity_id is the entity ID and is_locked is whether to lock (default True). This adds meaningful context beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool locks or unlocks an entity and explains the consequence (prevents automatic normalization and merging). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge_entities and canonicalize_entities_v1, which do related but different operations.

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 when to use (to prevent normalization) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. It gives no guidance on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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