figure_library_apply_recover_write_lockRecover from an abandoned write lock by archiving the unchanged lock and generating a recovery receipt once all writers have stopped.
Archive the exact unchanged abandoned lock and write a recovery receipt after all writers are confirmed stopped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| planDigest | Yes | ||
| operationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool destructive and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it archives the lock unchanged and writes a receipt, which clarifies what side effects occur. It does not contradict annotations and enriches the safety profile with context about the preservation and receipt-writing actions.
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 sentence with no redundancy. Every phrase adds value: 'exact unchanged abandoned lock', 'after all writers are confirmed stopped', and 'write a recovery receipt' all contribute to understanding. It is concise and well-structured.
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 destructive operation with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It omits what planDigest and operationId refer to, what the recovery receipt looks like, and any post-conditions beyond the action itself. The precondition is helpful, but the absence of parameter semantics and return details leaves the tool under-specified.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention planDigest or operationId at all. The parameter names are suggestive (a digest and operation ID), but the description fails to explain their role in the recovery process. This is a clear gap in compensating for missing schema details.
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 clearly specifies the action: archive the exact unchanged abandoned lock and write a recovery receipt, with a clear precondition that all writers are stopped. This distinguishes it from the sibling plan tool (plan_recover_write_lock) by describing the execution step, making the purpose 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?
It provides a clear context for use ('after all writers are confirmed stopped') which implies when to invoke it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or the relationship to the plan counterpart. The guidance is present but implicit; no direct 'when not to use' or comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.