worker_extend

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, confirming this is a write. The description adds meaningful context: renewal is bounded by an operator-configured hard runtime limit, and automatic renewal is enabled by default (implying a reason to do this manually). However it doesn't disclose failure modes, whether extraMs can exceed the hard limit, or what happens on rejection.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. 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?

Given a write operation with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should do more: explain extraMs semantics relative to the hard limit, what happens when the limit is hit, and when manual renewal is warranted. The hard-limit context helps but the param coverage gap leaves the agent under-informed.

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 0% and the description mentions no parameters. The three parameters (taskId, reason, extraMs) have no meaning added by the description beyond their names. With low coverage, the description should compensate; it does not.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Manually renew an active Worker lease.' Clear what it does, though it doesn't sharply distinguish from siblings like worker_steer or worker_wait which might also touch lease timing.

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?

Implies manual usage ('Manually renew') versus default automatic renewal, which gives some context. But no explicit when-to-use, no conditions for choosing this over waiting for automatic renewal or other alternatives.

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