Plan abandoned global write-lock recovery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds crucial context that the tool is not automatic: 'locks are never auto-stolen' and that the user must stop other writers. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the required user intervention and the non-automatic nature of recovery, adding value to the behavioral understanding.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second adds the essential safety precondition. There is no fluff or repetition; every word earns its place. It is concise and well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

Given the tool's role in a planning workflow, the description does not explain what the tool returns or what a 'plan' entails. It mentions inspecting the lock and requiring user action, but not the output or how the result feeds into the recovery process. With no output schema, the agent is left without expectations about the return value. This is a notable omission, though the safety guidance is solid. The description is not fully complete for a tool that likely returns a plan or status.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'reason' (string, 1-2000 chars) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its purpose. While 'reason' is intuitively a justification for the recovery plan, the description provides no guidance on what to enter or how it will be used, forcing reliance on naming. This is a significant gap for a required parameter.

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 opens with 'Inspect one exact Library write lock,' clearly stating the action (inspect) and resource (write lock). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling apply tool by focusing on planning and requiring user action before recovery. The verb 'Inspect' plus the specific resource and mention of recovery make the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states a precondition: 'The user must stop every Wisp, Codex, Claude, and other writer before approving recovery.' It also provides a behavioral rule: 'locks are never auto-stolen,' which guides the agent on when to use this planning tool versus the apply counterpart. This is clear, actionable guidance on how and when to invoke this tool.

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