unlock-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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Unlock a canvas' implies a mutation that removes a lock, but it doesn't describe what unlocking does (e.g., makes the asset editable, releases a reservation), potential side effects, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient phrase ('Unlock a canvas') with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple action, though it could benefit from more detail. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and 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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, error handling, and how parameters interact (e.g., forceUnlock bypassing lockId). For a tool with 4 parameters and potential side effects, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 already documents all four parameters (originalAssets, assetId, lockId, forceUnlock) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, not even mentioning assetId as required. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or add context.

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 'Unlock a canvas' states the action (unlock) and resource (canvas), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'unlock' entails operationally and doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'lock-asset-by-asset-id' beyond the opposite action. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about the unlocking mechanism or context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a lockId or forceUnlock), when unlocking is appropriate, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'lock-asset-by-asset-id'. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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