LightCMS

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

Annotations establish idempotency and non-destructiveness; description adds crucial behavioral context about 'automatic pruning' protection (lifecycle management) and observability ('marked with locked=true in get_theme_versions'). Discloses protection scope beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: functional definition, usage context, and practical example. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action and mechanism.

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?

Appropriately complete for low-complexity tool (single parameter, no output schema). Covers protection mechanism, verification method, usage scenario, and input format without needing return value documentation.

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% with parameter already documented as 'Theme version number to pin/unpin'. Description provides syntax example ({'version': 5}) but does not significantly expand semantic meaning beyond the comprehensive schema description.

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 specific action (Lock/protect) on specific resource (theme version) with clear scope protection from 'automatic pruning or accidental overwrite'. Distinguishes from siblings by referencing get_theme_versions for observability of the locked state and implies relationship to unpinning operations.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('preserve milestone theme states...before making further changes') with contextual example (after major redesign). References get_theme_versions for verification. Does not explicitly name unpin_theme_version as the reversal mechanism, though sibling naming makes this inferable.

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