vbcs_unlock_application

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'unlock a live application,' implying a state transition, but does not explain permissions, reversibility, side effects on other users, or what happens if the application is already unlocked. This is a mutation operation with no safety or consequence information.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse, making it an appropriate size for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool. It lacks essential context about branchId, prerequisites, and postconditions. The one-liner tells what the tool does but not how to use it correctly.

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 schema defines one required parameter, branchId, with no description (0% schema coverage). The description does not mention branchId at all, leaving the agent without any hint about what value to provide or how it relates to unlocking. This is a serious gap for correct invocation.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'unlock' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a live application on a standalone VBCS instance.' This distinguishes it from the sibling vbcs_lock_application and other VBCS tools. The core action is immediately understandable.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like vbcs_lock_application. It neither states prerequisites (e.g., the application must currently be locked) nor excludes cases. The intended context is only implied by the tool's name and one-line description.

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