lock-asset-by-asset-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Lock a canvas' implies a mutation (state change to locked), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether locking is reversible, effects on other users, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation operation.

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 'Lock a canvas'—a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it efficient for quick understanding, though it may be overly terse.

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 (a mutation with 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, error handling, and usage context. For a tool that modifies asset state, more information is needed to ensure correct invocation.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, default behaviors, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Lock a canvas' states the action and resource but is vague about scope and mechanism. It uses the verb 'lock' which implies a state change, but doesn't specify what locking entails (e.g., preventing edits, setting permissions). It distinguishes from sibling 'unlock-asset-by-asset-id' by opposite action, but doesn't differentiate from other asset-related tools like 'put-asset-by-asset-id' or 'get-assets-by-asset-id' in terms of purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing asset ID, expiration time), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'unlock-asset-by-asset-id' or other asset modification tools. Usage is implied only through the action 'lock', but no explicit context or scenarios are given.

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