pve_sdn_lock_release

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses mutation, risk levels (LOW/HIGH), dry-run default, effect of confirm, and that lock_token is not written to audit ledger. Very transparent.

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 well-structured with a clear start (MUTATION:), risk indicator, dry-run note, and audit note. It is concise but includes necessary detail; could be slightly shortened but effective.

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 presence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers purpose, behavior, risk, and parameter semantics adequately. It leaves no obvious gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining risk conditional on force, the dry-run behavior of confirm, and the audit exclusion for lock_token, which goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 'release the global SDN configuration lock' and distinguishes this as a mutation operation. The sibling tools include pve_sdn_lock_acquire, so the purpose is well-specified and distinct.

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?

Provides clear context on risk levels conditional on 'force', and mentions dry-run default vs. confirm behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives beyond the implicit acquire operation.

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