Open locker

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds valuable context: 'Anyone standing at the machine can take it' warns of the security risk, and 'Set confirm=true to proceed' clarifies the required confirmation step. This goes beyond the raw annotation by explaining real-world consequences. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying essential information: action, warning, and required flag. Front-loaded with the core action, then safety, then confirmation. No wasted words or irrelevant detail.

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 simplicity and the lack of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: the action, the security risk, the required confirm flag, and a safer alternative. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand the tool's use and risk, though it could arguably mention that the opening is irreversible once triggered.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description only reinforces 'confirm=true' but does not add new details about openCode or phoneNumbers. Per guidelines, baseline 3 applies when schema covers parameters; the extra mention is redundant but harmless.

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 states the specific verb and resource: 'Remotely open the Paczkomat compartment for a parcel.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'finish' or 'track' by focusing on the physical opening action. The title 'Open locker' reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 clear usage context: 'only use when you are there.' It also suggests an alternative behavior ('Prefer picking up in person at the correct locker') which implies a safe manual option. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it relative to sibling tools, so a slight gap remains.

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