lock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lock an object' implies a mutation operation that likely restricts access, but it doesn't specify what locking entails (e.g., exclusive access, read-only lock), permissions required, side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with potential behavioral implications.

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 just three words, front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language, making it efficient for quick understanding, though it may be overly terse.

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 complexity of a locking operation (likely a mutation with side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is incomplete. The description doesn't cover what 'lock' means, what happens after locking, or how to handle errors, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 has 100% description coverage, with 'objectUrl' and 'accessMode' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the purpose of 'accessMode' or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Lock an object' clearly states the action (lock) and target (object), but it's vague about what 'lock' means in this context (e.g., file lock, database lock, resource lock) and doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'unLock'. It avoids tautology by not restating the name/title, but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'unLock' or other sibling tools like 'createObject' or 'deleteObject'), nor does it mention prerequisites or context for locking. It's a bare statement with no usage context.

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