lock_parameter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what locking actually does (e.g., prevents edits/evaluation), whether the lock persists in the saved scene, what permissions or node state are required, or what the result looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 core action stated in the first sentence. The Args block is somewhat redundant given the schema, but it does not bloat the definition.

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 3-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should explain at minimum what locking accomplishes and how paths are formatted. Neither is present, leaving the agent unable to predict the effect of the call.

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. 'node_path: Node path' and 'parm_name: Parameter name' merely expand the parameter names, adding no format or lookup guidance (e.g., expected path syntax). Only 'locked: True to lock, False to unlock' adds any real meaning.

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 states a specific verb pair and resource ('Lock or unlock a parameter'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings like set_parameter, link_parameters, or revert_parameter, which also manipulate parameter state.

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?

There is no guidance on when to lock versus unlock, when locking is appropriate, or how this relates to alternatives such as link_parameters or set_parameter. The only usage-adjacent statement is the boolean interpretation of `locked`, which belongs to parameter semantics.

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