vm_lock

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the VM remains locked by this session and that vm_unlock must be called. This is a meaningful stateful behavior not captured by readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=true. 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?

Three short sentences deliver action, context, and lifecycle guidance with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter lock tool with no output schema, the description covers what, when, and the residual state. It could mention blocking behavior or failure modes, but the core calling context is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, with vm_name already fully documented as a unique VM name configured in WIN98CTL.INI. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'acquire the exclusive VM lease.' It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings by noting that most operational tools acquire the lease automatically and that vm_unlock is the counterpart. This leaves no ambiguity about what the 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 provides clear context: call this only when you need an explicit exclusive lease, since most operational tools acquire it automatically. It also directs the agent to call vm_unlock when finished. However, the 'when not to use' guidance is implied rather than stated as an explicit exclusion.

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