unLock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Unlock an object' without detailing side effects (such as removing the lock and making the object editable), failure conditions (e.g., trying to unlock an object that isn't locked), or permissions required. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating 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 a single, short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point, though it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without becoming verbose. The structure is clean and front-loaded with the key action.

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 mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the prerequisite of a prior lock operation, the effect of unlocking, error cases, or when this tool is the right choice. The schema covers the parameters but not the broader operational context.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for both required parameters (objectUrl and lockHandle), so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, which is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Unlock' and identifies the resource as 'object', which makes the core action clear. However, 'object' is generic and does not specify what kind of object, though the sibling tool 'lock' implies this is the inverse operation. It doesn't explicitly mention the lock handle or URL, leaving the scope somewhat vague.

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 does not mention that it should be used after a successful lock operation or that a valid lock handle is required. There is no mention of contexts where unlocking is appropriate or disallowed.

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