memory_lease

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses conflict behavior (another holder returns a conflict), state transitions (active/assigned, done, pending), that it writes lease/action/audit state, and the return shape. It stops short of permissions/auth needs or rate limits, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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-loads the core action (acquire/renew/release a lease) and then layers conditions and the sibling handoff. Dense but every clause earns its place; slightly packed for a single paragraph.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description compensates by describing state changes and return values ('lease details or released:true'). It is nearly complete for a mutation tool, with only permission and TTL-enforcement details left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each operation value does and what 'result' triggers on release. ttlMs and agentId semantics remain schema-only, keeping it from a 5.

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 specific verbs (acquire, renew, release) and the resource (action lease for agentId) with a clear scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming memory_action_update as the tool for dependent-completion propagation.

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 per-operation conditions: acquire requires an unfinished, unblocked action; renew requires this agent's live lease; release behavior depends on a nonempty result. It also names the alternative (memory_action_update) and the transition it handles, so the agent knows when-not to use this tool.

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