renew_attempt

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the 'active' and 'before it expires' constraints, but does not disclose side effects such as whether the lease token rotates, how lease_seconds changes the lease, or any rate limits. It adds some context beyond annotations but omits potentially important behavioral details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and object. It is concise and contains no redundant words, examples, or filler.

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 an output schema present, return values do not need to be explained. However, the description leaves gaps around the lease_token and lease_seconds parameters, and does not clarify what 'active work or review lease' means in terms of the attempt lifecycle. It is minimally adequate but lacks important operational context.

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 only 40%, and the description provides no parameter-specific details. The required parameters attempt_id and lease_token are not explained, and the optional lease_seconds behavior is not mentioned. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Extend' and names the resource 'active work or review lease', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'finish_attempt' and 'create_review_request'. It states exactly what action the tool performs.

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 phrase 'before it expires' provides clear temporal context for when to use this tool: on an active lease that is about to lapse. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing guidance is sufficient for most cases.

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