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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that the robot acts in the physical world, that an idempotency_key makes retries safe, and that a fault or non-response stops the lease. This adds critical operational context not captured by readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint.

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?

Four tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately moving into preconditions, safety, and failure behavior. No sentence is redundant.

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?

The description covers preconditions, physical-world consequences, retry semantics, and fault handling. With no output schema, 'returns the robot's result' is a bit thin on return shape, but for an arbitrary robot command this is a minor gap.

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, but the description adds semantic constraints: command must be one of the lease's granted commands, and idempotency_key reuses return the first result rather than acting again. It also notes that params follow the command's schema.

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 and resource: it runs one command on the leased robot and returns the robot's result. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_robot_commands (listing) and activate_lease (lease management).

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?

It gives concrete preconditions for use: the lease must be ACTIVE and supervisory, and the command must be one of the lease's granted commands. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_robot_commands, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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