vm_unlock

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

The description adds the behavioral trait that normal unlock refuses while terminals or transfers remain open, which goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true). This is useful context for agents to anticipate failures. However, it doesn't elaborate on the force parameter's effects, so not full transparency.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word adds value, with no fluff.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and a key failing condition, but omits explicit explanation of the force parameter and the consequences of releasing the lease. Given the low schema coverage, this is a notable gap, though the overall context is still understandable.

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 schema has one optional boolean parameter 'force' with 0% description coverage. The description hints at the need for force by stating the normal unlock refusal, but never explicitly explains that force overrides this check. This leaves parameter semantics largely implied rather than defined.

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 action: 'Release this session's VM lease' – clearly identifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from generic unlock by noting the refusal condition, differentiating it from vm_lock and other session tools.

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 this tool: to release the VM lease, with a caveat that it normally refuses under certain conditions. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclude when NOT to use it, though it gives clear context.

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