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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that visibility is capped by the original queue expiry, that stale/expired receipts are conflicts, and that overall queue lifetime is never extended. This gives an agent critical stateful behavior without contradicting the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints.

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 tight sentences lead with the core action, then pack the timeout constraints, conflict case, and lifetime caveat. Every sentence contributes information and there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations already marking this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, the description covers the important behavioral edge cases for a renewal call. It is only slightly incomplete in not explicitly stating that the worker must already hold the claim and that the response likely returns a refreshed receipt, though 'current receipt' strongly implies this.

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 description adds meaning to visibility_timeout (30-900 seconds, default 60, capped by queue expiry) and clarifies that receipt must be the current receipt. However, it leaves the roles of queue_id, job_id, and worker_token mostly to inference from naming and schema patterns.

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 the specific action 'Move the active claim deadline', naming both the operation and the resource. This clearly distinguishes renewal from sibling actions like ack_agent_queue_job, release_agent_queue_job, or claim_agent_queue_job.

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 renewal is only valid while a claim is active and a current receipt is held, and it gives constraints on visibility_timeout. However, it never explicitly says 'use this when you need more processing time for a claimed job' or contrasts it with ack/release alternatives, so the usage context is more implied than stated.

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