Update a lock

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: exact matching requirement, error behavior listing actual task texts, and that it works regardless of current directory. Annotations only state readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints; the description enriches these with practical details.

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 compact yet information-dense. It opens with the core action, then provides timing guidance, exact-match rules, and error behavior in logical order. Every sentence contributes unique value, and the structure is neatly front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: when to call, the matching rule, error handling, and compatibility with lock states. The parameter semantics are well covered by the schema, and the description fills in the missing behavioral details, making it complete for an agent's decision-making.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning to the task_text parameter by emphasizing 'EXACTLY' and explaining the error response on mismatch, which goes beyond the schema's generic description. This pushes the score above baseline.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Flips one task on an existing lock to done or not-done, and optionally appends a note.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lock_create (creates), lock_query (reads), and lock_finish (likely finishes the entire lock).

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 timing guidance: 'Call this AS SOON as a task actually completes — not batched at the end of your work' which is a clear when-to-use instruction. Also explains the consequence of mismatch (returns error) and the tool's applicability to active/done locks, giving the agent a strong sense of when to invoke it.

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