lock

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

With no annotations and no description of behavioral traits, the agent has no information about side effects (e.g., exclusivity of lock, implications for concurrent access, or failure modes). The description is silent on what actually happens when locking occurs.

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 at three words, but it sacrifices necessary context. It is front-loaded with the action, but oversimplification leads to ambiguity. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one barely provides value beyond the tool name.

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 complexity of the sibling tools (suggesting an ABAP development environment), the description fails to explain what 'locking' means in this domain. Without specifying context like object types or lock types, the agent cannot determine correct usage. The description is incomplete for a tool with only schema and no annotations.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters ('URL of the object to lock', 'Access mode for the lock'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Lock an object' is a clear verb+resource pair, but it lacks specificity about what kind of object (e.g., development object in an ADT system) and the context of the lock. It distinguishes from sibling 'unLock' but could benefit from more detail.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unLock' or other locking mechanisms. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where locking is appropriate.

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