lock_command

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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool locks or unlocks a command but does not explain side effects, persistence, session scope, or whether the operation is reversible. For a state-changing tool, this is a notable gap.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by clearly formatted argument definitions. There is no filler or redundant content, and the key information is 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?

The tool is simple with only two scalar parameters and an output schema available, so the basics are covered. However, it lacks any usage context, behavioral caveats, or indication of how lock state behaves, making it minimally viable rather than fully complete.

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 provides only names and types, with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'cmd: Command name to lock/unlock' and 'lock: True to lock, False to unlock.' This adds real meaning, especially the boolean semantics, though the cmd description remains minimal.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Lock or unlock a HWP command.' This is easily distinguishable from the sibling query tool is_command_lock. It could be slightly more explicit about what constitutes a 'command,' but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, whether there are prerequisites such as an open document, or how locking relates to is_command_lock. The description only defines the operation itself without any usage context or exclusions.

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