control_acquire

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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/not-readOnly, so the safety bar is partly met; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: other clients can still read status/events, the lease expires and must be renewed, release belongs in finally, and human input remains possible. Only the failure mode when the lease is contended is left undisclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in one short sentence, followed by three compact operational clauses. Every clause carries information; no padding, though the terse grammar slightly sacrifices readability.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does cover the essential operational story (acquire, renew, release, read parallelism). But for a mutating lease tool it omits what acquiring returns and whether acquisition blocks or fails when another client holds the lease, which are needed to call it correctly.

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 neither optional parameter is documented in the schema. The description hints that 'seconds' relates to expiry ('renew before expiry') but never explains the label field, the seconds unit/default, or what the value controls, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Acquire a workflow control lease.' An agent can distinguish it from the sibling control_release (the acquire/release pairing is clear). It stops short of explaining what a 'control lease' actually grants, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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?

Gives lifecycle guidance ('Renew before expiry and release in finally'), which implies ongoing use and points toward control_release. However, it never states when to acquire versus not, nor what happens if the lease is already held by another client, leaving the core usage decision to inference.

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