Set Workstation Read-only

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the actual two-phase unlock protocol, what the first call returns (confirmationText and a token), and the hard constraint that workstation policy cannot be overridden. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context the structured fields cannot convey.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the mode rules and call sequence. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter state-changing tool with an output schema, the definition covers scope, the confirmation flow, and the policy constraint, so an agent can call it correctly. It does not say whether already-running Revit sessions are affected or what permissions the Windows user needs, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters, and it largely does: confirm_token's role in the second call is made explicit, and the lock-versus-unlock wording implies enabled=true locks while enabled=false unlocks. The mapping for 'enabled' is inferred rather than stated outright, which keeps it from a 5.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Set the workstation read-only lock') and bounds scope to 'all Revit versions of this Windows user,' which clearly separates it from the document- and view-level siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a contrasting sibling, but no sibling is close enough to be confused with it.

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 clearly explains the two operating modes: locking requires no token, while unlocking requires a user request plus explicit confirmation through a two-call flow. It gives concrete procedural guidance but does not state when an agent should avoid this tool or what preconditions exist on the workstation.

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