lock_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (toggling lock state based on the 'locked' flag), but it does not mention side effects, error behavior, return values, or whether the operation is reversible. The description is not misleading, but it adds little beyond the immediate 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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and parameter meanings listed clearly. Every line contributes useful information, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple three-parameter tool, the description covers the parameters and the action, but it omits expected string formats, whether the operation returns a value, and how failures (e.g., invalid node path) are reported. Given no output schema or annotations, these omissions leave the agent with some uncertainty.

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 repeats 'node_path' and 'parm_name' almost verbatim from the schema titles, but it does add meaningful semantics for 'locked': 'True to lock, False to unlock.' However, it does not explain expected formats for node_path or parm_name, such as '/obj/geo1' or 'tx'.

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+resource ('Lock or unlock a parameter') and clearly identifies the operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_parameter and set_parameters by focusing specifically on the lock state rather than value assignment.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as set_parameter, link_parameters, or revert_parameter. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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