oss_unit_renew

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It does add one non-obvious behavioral fact — implicit auto-renewal per call — which is real value beyond the schema. But it omits what happens if the lease expires (does the unit get released, do later unit calls fail?), whether renewal extends a timer or resets state, and what the call returns.

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 the action first and the qualifying condition in parentheses; nothing is padded. It is dense enough that a non-Korean reader gets little redundancy to fall back on, but structurally there is no waste.

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 mutation-style lifecycle tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three entirely undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It answers 'when do I call this' but not 'what state does it require, what does it change, and what happens on failure', which is the minimum an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 three parameters ('project_id', 'unit_id', 'agent'), and the description mentions none of them. In particular the 'agent' parameter with default 'main' has no explanation anywhere, so the agent must guess at required identifiers.

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 names an action and resource ('임대 연장' / lease extension), so the general intent is recoverable, and the parenthetical clarifies that renewal is normally implicit. However, it never explains what the 'unit' being leased is or what a lease represents in this system, so the purpose is only partially pinned down for an agent that has not seen the sibling tool family.

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?

It gives genuinely actionable guidance: renewal happens automatically on every tool call, so an explicit call is only needed when the agent is idling or thinking for a long stretch. That is a clear when-to-use rule. It stops short of stating failure conditions or naming alternatives for recovering an already-expired lease.

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