unlock_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds one behavioral trait beyond them: ownership enforcement when agent_id is provided. It does not disclose failure behavior when ownership check fails, the locked→unlocked state transition semantics, or reversibility, which a mutation tool should surface.

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?

Two sentences totaling 13 words with the primary action and effect front-loaded. Both sentences earn their place: the first states the operation and outcome, the second adds the ownership condition. No filler or redundancy.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it omits the state transition semantics (what exactly 'unlocked' means), failure behavior when ownership fails, reversibility, and how session_key interacts with unlock. The schema's odd session_key note ('Full text on recall') is not reconciled in the description, leaving an agent with open questions for a state-changing call.

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 effectively 100%, so all three parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description's agent_id note is consistent with the schema's 'Agent ID for ownership verification' but adds no new meaning; memory_id and session_key are not elaborated in the description.

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 states a specific verb (unlock) and resource (memory) and explains the effect ('to allow deletion and editing'), which clearly differentiates it from the sibling lock_memory and from delete/update operations. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling contrast, so it misses the top score.

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 purpose clause 'to allow deletion and editing' implies when the tool should be called (before editing or deleting a locked memory), and the ownership condition qualifies agent_id usage. However, no alternatives are named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions.

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