Claim, release, or list shared-resource leases

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a good job: it explains that leases are advisory, self-expiring, that acquire is non-blocking and re-reads network state, and that crashes do not permanently strand resources. It does not mention failure modes or edge cases like re-acquiring an already held lease, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 dense but not bloated; every sentence adds useful behavioral or usage detail. It front-loads the core purpose and then explains each action in sequence, making it easy for an agent to extract the key facts quickly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately covers response semantics: acquire returns granted true/false and list shows holder/expiry/queue. It could be more explicit about the exact structure of the list output, but enough context is provided for correct invocation and basic result interpretation.

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?

The schema covers most parameters concisely, and the description adds meaningful semantics: action values, resource naming conventions, ttl defaults, and note purpose. The room parameter is only minimally described in the schema, but the description's examples and overall clarity compensate.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: managing advisory, self-expiring leases on shared resources with actions acquire, release, and list. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on mutual-exclusion locking rather than messaging, reading, or search.

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 gives practical usage guidance: acquire with a note and ttl, release when done, and wait or do other work if acquire returns granted:false. It could be more explicit about when to prefer this over sibling tools, but the advisory-lock semantics make the intended context clear.

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