vm_unlock

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals an important nuance: a normal unlock refuses when terminals or transfers are open, implying that force changes this behavior. This adds meaningful context about failure modes and the existence of a non-normal mode, even though it does not fully spell out the exact effect of force.

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: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a critical behavioral caveat. It is front-loaded and every word 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 low-complexity tool with helpful annotations and input schema, the description covers the main purpose and a key edge case. It could be more explicit about how force overrides the refusal and what the return behavior is, but those are not significant blockers given the schema and annotations.

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 documents vm_name but leaves force undescribed, giving only 50% coverage. The phrase 'Normal unlock refuses...' indirectly hints that force is the abnormal override mode, but it never explicitly connects force to that behavior. The description adds some meaning but still relies on inference.

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 concrete action—'Release this session's VM lease'—naming both the verb and resource precisely. It further distinguishes itself with the conditional behavior 'Normal unlock refuses while terminals or transfers remain open,' clearly separating it from sibling tools like vm_lock and other VM management actions.

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 gives clear context about when the unlock will fail (while terminals or transfers are open), which is directly useful for choosing the right invocation. It implies that the optional force parameter provides an alternative path, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state 'use force=true when you want to override.'

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