engine_db_unlocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive scope (releases only own locks, not others'), the conditionality (only locks outside an operation), and the parameter-dependent behavior. It also warns about the risk of releasing locks from still-running calls. It doesn't explicitly state whether the operation is reversible or what the response looks like, but the safety-relevant behavior is well covered.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: scope, exclusions, parameter behavior, and a safety warning. The phrasing is slightly informal ('what a tool of the store took and died before letting go') but not wasteful. It earns its length.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it releases, what it doesn't, how the parameter changes behavior, and a safety check. It doesn't describe return values or error cases, but those are less critical given the simple input and the strong behavioral disclosure.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the 'tables' parameter's effect (without tables, all stuck rows; with them, only named ones). It doesn't provide exact format or examples, but the meaning is clear. Given the single optional parameter, this is strong compensation.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: releasing locks left behind by the current user's own dead operations. It specifies the resource (oper_block rows), the condition (own login, outside any operation), and explicitly distinguishes what it does NOT release (storefront locks, others' locks, open form locks). This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 explicit guidance: 'Look at engine_db_locks first' and explains why (a table taken a second ago may belong to a call still running). It also explains the optional 'tables' parameter behavior: without tables, all stuck rows go; with tables, only named ones. This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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