Renew a work-session lease

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the lease has immutable step/time/spend ceilings and the renewal does not widen them. It also clarifies the scope to the authenticated worker's active lease, which is useful operational context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the primary action and includes the key constraint in a prepositional phrase. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 fully explains the tool's purpose and key behavioral constraint, which is helpful. However, with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the description leaves parameter semantics and expected return behavior unexplained. It is adequate but not complete for a tool with three non-trivial parameters.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. While 'session_id' can be inferred as the lease identifier from context, the meanings of 'used_steps' and 'used_spend_cents' are entirely unexplained. The description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Renew') with a clear resource ('the authenticated worker's active lease') and adds nuance (immutable ceilings). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'submit_work_session' or 'claim_work_assignment' by focusing on lease renewal.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when the worker needs to renew an active lease. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling set. The note about immutable ceilings also sets expectations for what the renewal does not change.

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