Sdk Renew Project Lease

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds real behavioral context not in annotations: the lease fail-closes on project switch, expiry, or Add-In restart. It does not explain permissions or what happens if the session ref is stale.

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?

A single short clause front-loads the action, with the failure conditions appended. It is tight and wastes no words, though the terseness leaves the second half slightly ambiguous about the exact mechanics of 'fail-close'.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a mutation tool the description omits the meaning of its only parameter and any explicit usage timing, leaving the definition only minimally 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 0% and there is one required parameter (sdk_session_ref) that the description never mentions. No hint about where the ref comes from or how to obtain it, so the description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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+resource ('续期 SDK 工程租约' / renew SDK project lease), which is clear and unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the adjacent lease siblings (acquire_project_lease, release_project_lease), but the action is self-evident from the name and text.

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 implies when renewal is needed by naming the failure triggers (project switching, expiry, Add-In restart), which nudges the agent toward proactive renewal. However, it never states when to call versus acquire/release_project_lease, nor any prerequisite for having an existing lease.

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