unLock

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. It states the action ('unlock') but fails to describe critical traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, error conditions, or what happens if the lock is invalid. This leaves significant gaps 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 just three words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it lacks necessary context for a mutation tool, slightly reducing its effectiveness.

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 tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the unlock process, success/failure outcomes, or system implications, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an 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, clearly documenting both parameters ('objectUrl' and 'lockHandle'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from understanding.

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 'Unlock an object' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'unLock'. It specifies a verb ('unlock') and resource ('object'), but provides no additional context about what type of object or system is involved, making it vague and minimally informative.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a previous lock operation), exclusions, or related tools like 'lock' from the sibling list, leaving the agent 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.