extend_lock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral constraints (owner-only, env var requirement) but omits potential side effects, failure conditions (e.g., expired lock, invalid ID), or return behavior. This is adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the core action and then add essential constraints. There is no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple two-parameter schema and absence of output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does and its prerequisites. It stops short of explaining return values or error behavior, but for this simple mutation that is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (lock_id and additional_days) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Extend the duration of an existing LP lock.' It is easily distinguished from sibling tools such as lock_lp (create) and withdraw_lp (remove), making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool—on an existing lock to add days—and includes prerequisites like ownership and the DEPLOYER_PRIVATE_KEY env var. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though these are implied by the sibling tools.

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