Extend ci lifecycle lease

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, open-world mutation with destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what changes, whether extension is bounded, or what happens on failure — effectively restating the name/title.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently written, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, one sentence is far too thin. An agent cannot know which optional parameters are alternatives, how leaseTime is formatted, or what a successful extension returns.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails it: required actionName and requestorId, plus sysIds, opsLabel, leaseTime, oldOpsLabels, and oldActionNames are all unexplained. 'Specified CI action's lease' only vaguely gestures at actionName/leaseTime and gives no semantics for the remaining five.

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: 'Extends the specified CI action's lease expiration time.' An agent can tell it is a mutation of a lease timer on a CI action. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling CI-lifecycle tools (e.g., set_ci_lifecycle_status, add_ci_lifecycle_action), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that the lease must not already be expired), and no reference to alternative tools such as check_ci_lifecycle_lease_expired or set_ci_lifecycle_status. The agent is left to infer context entirely.

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