refresh_claim

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the authorization precondition (token must be live AND held by the calling actor), the sweeper race that makes expired refreshes unsafe, the side effect of writing a claim_refreshed event, and the plan-level refresh limits with the exact refusal shape (claim_limit_reached, details.reason of max_lifetime or no_progress, claimed_until). That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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-loaded with purpose and trigger, then escalates to preconditions, side effects, and error contract. Dense but almost every sentence adds new information; the parenthetical about the verifier mid-deploy is illustrative rather than essential, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 exists, and the description compensates by describing both the success side effect (claim_refreshed event) and the failure contract (error code, details.reason values, claimed_until). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or handle refusal is missing.

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%, so the description must carry the load; it does for ExtendBy (duration shorthand like '30m'/'2h', default = role's configured TTL added to claimed_until) and for ClaimToken (must be live and actor-held). The 'as_agent' parameter is never explained, which leaves one of three parameters undocumented — the only real gap.

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 and resource plus the key differentiator: 'Extend an active claim's TTL without releasing it.' That phrase alone separates it from release_claim and the claim_* siblings, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 an explicit trigger ('when a subagent's reproduction is taking longer than the configured role TTL') with a concrete example, and an explicit exclusion ('an already-expired claim cannot be reanimated here — it must release and re-claim'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated, plus the alternative path.

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