Set Agent Lock

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

Annotations already cover mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false), and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds environment scoping context but does not explain what locking actually does (e.g., prevents modifications or invocations), so additional behavioral context is missing.

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?

Single concise sentence, front-loaded with action, no redundant words. Achieves maximum clarity per word.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with good annotations, the description is adequate but lacks details about the lock's effect or when to use instead of lyzr_set_agent_status. Does not explain the outcome or significance of locking.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'optionally scoped to an environment' reinforces the environment parameter but adds minimal meaning beyond the schema fields.

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?

Description clearly states it locks or unlocks an agent, with optional environment scoping. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from most sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similarly named lyzr_set_agent_status.

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 implies usage when 'lock/unlock' is needed, but provides no explicit when-not or alternative guidance. With sibling tools like lyzr_set_agent_status, more explicit direction would help.

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