clear_device_lock

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a destructive action ('Remove the secure lock screen') and explains the dependency on providing the current credential. It also specifies the post-condition ('restore a clean state'), which adds useful behavioral context beyond just naming the operation.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. First sentence front-loads the core action and required input. Second sentence provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place. No extraneous information.

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 tool with only 2 parameters (both well-documented in schema), no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what input is required, and the typical usage scenario. It could mention what happens if the credential is wrong (error behavior) to be fully complete, but the existing information is sufficient for correct selection and invocation in most cases.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of 'old_value' as 'the current credential, needed to clear the lock', which reinforces the schema description. For 'serial' it does not add new details, but the schema already adequately defines its optionality and purpose, so the overall contribution lifts the score slightly.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('secure lock screen'), clearly linking to credential parameter 'old_value'. It also distinguishes from its sibling 'set_device_lock' by indicating this is the reverse operation, and frames the purpose within a testing context.

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 usage context ('after testing a Keystore flow') but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with other lock-related tools like 'set_device_lock', 'prefer_pin', or 'enter_pin'. Without sibling differentiation or alternative recommendations, usage guidance is adequate but incomplete.

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