acquire_content_lockLocks a content item for the current API user to prevent concurrent edits. Returns a conflict if another user already holds the lock.
Acquire an advisory lock on a content item for the current API user. Returns conflict if another user holds the lock.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content_id | Yes | Content item ID,required |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v7.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations supply idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's added value is the conflict behavior ('Returns conflict if another user holds the lock'), a genuinely useful failure mode. It omits lock lifetime/expiry and whether an unattended lock blocks other users indefinitely.
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?
Two compact sentences with zero filler; the action and scope come first and the error semantics second. Nothing is wasted or buried.
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 one-parameter lock tool with no output schema, the key missing context is lifecycle: how long the lock persists, whether it auto-expires, and that release_content_lock must eventually be called. Annotations cover idempotency, but the operational contract is only partially conveyed.
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?
Only one parameter, fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage ('Content item ID,required'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (acquire) and resource (advisory lock on a content item), scoped to the current API user. It is clearly distinguishable from get_content_lock and release_content_lock by the 'acquire' semantics, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 statement of when to acquire a lock versus using get_content_lock to inspect one, and no mention that release_content_lock (or force_unlock_content) is the counterpart action. The locking lifecycle an agent must follow is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.