unlock_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a state-changing action ('unlock') but does not disclose what happens on success (e.g., 204 No Content), prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), or behavior if the issue is already unlocked. The docs link adds some context, but the description itself is minimal.

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, clear sentence followed by a docs link. It immediately states the action and subject, keeping it concise and front-loaded with no filler.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks information about return status, error conditions, and permission requirements, which could matter for an agent invoking the tool. Complexity is low, but the description could include more behavioral details.

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%, with each parameter (owner, repo, issue_number) adequately described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond listing 'previously locked GitHub issue conversation', which aligns with the schema. Baseline of 3 applies due to full coverage.

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 ('Unlock') and clearly identifies the resource ('a previously locked GitHub issue conversation'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like lock_issue (the inverse) and get_issue (read-only) by stating the action taken.

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 implies usage when an issue is locked and needs to be unlocked, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of conditions like required permissions or that the issue must be locked.

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