task_lock_description

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

Annotations already indicate mutation, idempotence, and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable context: task_update refuses the change while locked, and every other field still changes freely. This explains the operational consequence of locking beyond what annotations state. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences with no redundancy: purpose, mechanism, and scope. The core verb and resource are front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful 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 low-complexity tool with two simple parameters and a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and side effects. It could mention the intended alternative action more explicitly, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 already documents both parameters completely, including the boolean meaning and default for 'locked'. With 100% schema coverage, the description need not repeat parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds no extra parameter-level semantics.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: 'Lock or unlock a task's description.' It goes further by distinguishing itself from task_update, explaining that the tool guards the description field specifically. In a large sibling list, this uniquely identifies the tool's role.

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?

Gives a concrete use case: preventing accidental spec rewrites when the intent is to add a comment. It also clarifies that other fields remain editable, helping the agent understand what the tool does not affect. It stops short of explicitly naming 'comment_add' as the alternative, so not a full 5.

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