lock_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'to collaborators only,' which is the core effect of locking, but doesn't disclose permissions (e.g., write access required), reversibility, or what happens if the issue is already locked. The docs link is not part of the description text itself.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action. The docs link is appended efficiently without redundant fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It explains what the tool does and links to docs, but it lacks usage and behavioral context. The schema covers parameters, but the overall description is not fully complete on its own.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already fully documents each parameter, including the enum for lock_reason. This is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lock') and resource ('GitHub issue conversation') with a clear scope ('to collaborators only'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unlock_issue. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unlock_issue or update_issue. It doesn't state prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The only contextual hint is 'to collaborators only,' but that's part of the action, not usage guidance.

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