Renew a dialogue lease for 300 seconds or release it; releasing unfinished incoming work leaves it unknown instead of automatically retrying it.
Renew the current lease for 300 seconds or release it: action=renew/release.
Releasing unfinished incoming work leaves it unknown, not automatically retried.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| lease_token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful behaviors: the renewal duration and the side effect of releasing unfinished work (left unknown, not auto-retried). It omits what happens on lease expiry, invalid tokens, or failure modes, which for a lease/mutation tool is a notable gap.
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 tight sentences; the primary action and duration are front-loaded, and the consequence warning follows. No filler, though a slightly fuller structure with the token source would have been more useful.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description should do more: it never says where the lease_token comes from, what a successful renew returns, or whether the lease token changes. It is adequate for the action semantics but incomplete for correct invocation.
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 both parameters carry only titles. The description supplies the enum values for action (renew/release), which is real added value absent from the schema, but lease_token (how to obtain it, format, required) gets no explanation.
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 pair (renew/release) on a concrete resource (the dialogue lease) with the duration (300 seconds). An agent can tell it is about lease lifecycle rather than dialogue content, though it does not name any sibling as an alternative.
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?
Usage is implicit: renew to hold the lease, release to give it up, with a warning that releasing unfinished incoming work leaves items unknown rather than retried. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or comparison against siblings like a4a_dialogue_abandon or a4a_dialogue_complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.