lock_memory

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that locking prevents deletion and editing. It also clarifies the conditional ownership enforcement tied to agent_id, which is not captured in the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint flags. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately follows with the key ownership condition, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 locking tool with a single required parameter, the description covers the core behavior and the important ownership nuance. No output schema exists, but little is needed because the tool's effect is straightforwardly described.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds value by clarifying that ownership is only enforced when agent_id is provided. This is a meaningful semantic qualifier beyond the schema's generic 'Agent ID for ownership verification' phrasing.

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 ('a memory') and clearly states the intended effect: preventing deletion and editing. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like unlock_memory and delete_memory, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 the tool is used when a memory must be protected from deletion or editing, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. The ownership note ('Ownership enforced when agent_id provided') gives conditional usage context, but no direct comparison to siblings is provided.

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