unlock_edition

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

Annotations already declare this a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by disclosing the owner-confirmation precondition and the extra confirm_action=true requirement imposed specifically by the local REST bridge. It does not explain what unlocking actually changes about the edition, whether prior state is preserved, or how idempotency behaves on retry — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences with the scope constraint front-loaded, which is good structure. The final sentence about the local REST bridge, however, presupposes a deployment detail the agent may not otherwise know, and it partially duplicates the confirm_action schema text rather than adding new guidance.

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 four-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and thin schema documentation, the description covers the eligibility window and confirmation requirement but leaves the outcome unspecified — the agent cannot tell what a successful unlock returns or whether the edition becomes editable or re-publishable. Adequate to avoid misuse, insufficient to fully predict the result.

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 only 25%, with just confirm_action documented in-schema, and the description largely restates that same bridge-only confirm_action=true rule. It partially compensates for confirm_edition_date_et by tying the call to the rolling 90-day window, but edition_id and idempotency_key receive no explanation of format, sourcing, or retry semantics beyond the schema's uuid pattern and length bounds.

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 specific action on a specific resource — opening (unlocking) a date/edition — and bounds it to the rolling 90 Eastern calendar dates, which clearly separates it from read-only siblings like get_latest_edition and list_editions. The only ambiguity is whether the call performs the unlock or merely records a confirmation request, since the phrasing 'Request explicit owner confirmation to open a date' blurs those two meanings with the tool name unlock_edition.

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?

Provides concrete eligibility rules for use: only within the rolling 90 Eastern calendar window, the latest published edition is eligible, and an expired date cannot be reopened. It stops short of naming an alternative or recovery path when a date is expired or out of window, so the agent knows the boundaries but not what to do instead.

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