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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that lock state is not machine-readable from this endpoint, specifies a procedure to judge staleness, and warns about user confirmation if the project may be open elsewhere. This is critical behavioral context that the agent would otherwise miss.

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 front-loaded with the critical 'RECOVERY-ONLY' warning, followed by compact, purposeful sentences. It avoids filler and each sentence contributes to either safety, usage, or staleness judgment. Though two paragraphs long, the density justifies the length.

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 is a lock-release with safety implications, the description covers purpose, explicit boundaries, staleness verification method, and user-confirmation requirement. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for project_id with 'the project to unlock.' The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter itself, only about the lock's context. Since the schema handles the parameter semantics, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'RECOVERY-ONLY — releases a project's editing lock when a stale or abandoned session blocks new modifications,' which identifies the verb (releases), resource (editing lock), and specific condition. It clearly sets it apart from normal editing tools and sibling tools like dreamagent_chat by emphasizing it is not a standard operation.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('when a stale or abandoned session blocks new modifications') and when-not-to-use ('NOT a normal editing step', 'NEVER a way to bypass an actively running edit'). It also directs the agent to an alternative tool (dreamagent_get_edit_progress) for staleness checks and advises user confirmation, satisfying the need for alternatives.

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