unlock_owner_wait

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'manually unlock' without disclosing effects, preconditions, or side effects. Lacks details on what happens after unlock, permissions needed, or reversibility.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences covering purpose and arguments. No wasted words, appropriate length for a simple tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no required fields, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but lacks usage context and behavioral details. Insufficient for an agent to correctly assess when to invoke it.

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 description adds some meaning: reason defaults to 'manual_unlock' and caller_agent_id is called required. However, the requirement contradicts the schema, reducing trust. Adds marginal value but not comprehensive.

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 tool manually releases the owner's waiting lock ('Owner の待機ロックを手動解除する'), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which mention lock functionality.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description claims caller_agent_id is required ('必須') but the schema sets it as optional with a null default, creating a contradiction that misleads usage.

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