file_lock_acquire

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It discloses that the lock is advisory, non-blocking (returns ok:false with the current holder), auto-expires after 30 minutes by default, and normalizes paths to absolute.

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?

Four sentences, each adding a distinct fact: purpose, return contract, auto-expiry, and path normalization. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, return behavior, expiry, and normalization, which is strong for a tool with no output schema. It is missing explicit agent_name semantics and a hint about file_lock_release for early release, but these are minor gaps.

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 compensate. It adds meaning for file_path (normalized to absolute) and ttl_sec (default 30min expiration), but it says nothing about agent_name, leaving that parameter's purpose ambiguous.

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 opens with 'Acquire an advisory file lock' — a specific verb and resource — and immediately states the concurrency-prevention purpose. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like file_lock_release and file_lock_list, whose names alone signal different actions.

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 phrase 'prevent two agents editing the same file concurrently' gives a clear scenario for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when shared memory would be a better coordination mechanism.

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