Force Unlock Content

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: an admin-only authorization requirement and the fact that this breaks a lock held by another party. It does not say what happens to the previous holder's work or whether the action is logged.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the authorization gate and the action, with zero redundant or decorative phrasing.

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 admin action with no output schema and annotations covering the safety hints, the description is nearly sufficient. Only minor gaps remain, such as the error behavior when no lock exists or what the caller receives back.

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% for the single content_id parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the identifier format or how to obtain it; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 (force-release) and resource (lock on a content item) with the defining scope qualifier 'regardless of who holds it,' which cleanly separates it from the owner-scoped release_content_lock sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the distinction must be inferred.

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?

'Admin only' gives a clear permission prerequisite, and 'force-release any lock regardless of who holds it' implies the override scenario. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over release_content_lock or what situation warrants the override, leaving the routing decision implied.

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