Finish a lock

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

Despite minimal annotations (all hints false), the description discloses important behaviors: it appends to Notes, moves the file, and errors on non-existent or already-done locks rather than silently no-op-ing. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear model of side effects and failure modes.

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 a single, well-organized sentence that front-loads the primary action, then adds subordinate details (summary, archive, query visibility, error behavior). Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its side effects (archiving, visibility change), and error conditions. No critical behavioral information is missing.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that lock_id must refer to an active lock, and that summary is appended to the Notes section before archival. These details are not in the raw 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 the action: 'Marks an active lock as done', appends a summary, and moves the file to an archive. It distinguishes this from siblings by focusing on completion/archiving rather than querying, creating, updating, or conflict-checking.

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?

The description implies when to use: when a lock is done and should be archived. It also clarifies that the lock disappears from lock_query's default view, hinting that lock_query can be used to check status before finishing. It does not explicitly list alternatives but provides sufficient context to differentiate.

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