modx_remove_locks

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does frame the operation as safe by qualifying the locks as 'stale' and tied to a 'dead session', but it never states the scope of the mutation (does it clear all locks globally, given zero parameters?), the permission level required, or whether the action is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, these are real omissions.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the qualifying condition in a tight parenthetical. There is no filler, and the most important information (what is cleared and why) appears first.

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 zero-parameter operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essentials: what it does and the situation that warrants it. It stops short of describing the effect scope and required privileges, which an agent would still want before invoking a lock-clearing mutation.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not falsely suggest any selectable scope, though it also does not clarify that the operation is global rather than targeted.

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 gives a concrete verb ('Clear') and a specific resource ('stale manager edit locks'), and the parenthetical narrows the target to locks left by a dead session. It does not name any sibling, but no other lock-related tool exists in the sibling list, so the operation is naturally distinguishable.

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 trigger condition is stated explicitly: use it 'when an element/resource is reported locked by a dead session.' That is meaningful routing context. The gap is the absence of when-NOT-to-use guidance, e.g. that live-session locks should not be cleared and that the dead session should be confirmed first.

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