vbcs_unlock_application

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope constraint that this targets a locked live application on a standalone instance, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, or what state change 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Brevity is appropriate here, though it arguably trims too much given the undocumented parameter.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves a critical gap: what branchId means and how to obtain it. The annotations cover the safety profile, but the calling contract is underspecified.

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% and the single required parameter branchId is completely undocumented. The description never mentions branchId, so an agent has no idea what value identifies the application to unlock.

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 verb+resource ('Unlock a locked live application') and scopes it to a standalone VBCS instance. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling vbcs_lock_application as the inverse, but the verb choice makes the distinction obvious.

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 on when to unlock, prerequisites (e.g. must be locked first), or how it relates to vbcs_lock_application. The only contextual hint is 'standalone VBCS instance', which is a constraint, not usage guidance.

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