edstem-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully explains the primary effect (preventing new replies) but omits important mutation context such as reversibility, whether existing replies remain visible, or required authorization levels.

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 exceptionally concise at six words. Every element earns its place: the action ('Lock'), the target ('a thread'), and the behavioral clarification ('prevent new replies') are all front-loaded with zero redundancy.

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 single-parameter state-changing operation without output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the tool mutates thread state and has a clear inverse (unlock_thread), the absence of any mention of reversibility or side effects leaves a noticeable gap in contextual completeness.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('Global thread ID'). The description adds no additional parameter context, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 verb ('Lock'), resource ('thread'), and specific behavioral scope ('prevent new replies'). The parenthetical clarification effectively distinguishes this from sibling operations like pin_thread or star_thread, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to lock vs. pin), nor does it mention prerequisites like moderation permissions or the existence of unlock_thread as the inverse operation.

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