refresh_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the token must be live and held by the calling actor, that expired claims cannot be reanimated because the stuck-work sweeper may have reassigned the row, and that a claim_refreshed event is written for audit. It stops short of describing auth/permission requirements beyond caller ownership.

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-loads purpose, then usage, then failure-mode caveats and side effects. Dense but every sentence carries operational weight; no 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers triggering conditions, default behavior, failure modes, and the audit side effect, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The remaining gap is the unlabeled ClaimToken/as_agent parameters.

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 compensate. It thoroughly explains ExtendBy (duration shorthand like '30m'/'2h', and the default of adding the role's configured TTL), but ClaimToken and as_agent are left largely implicit. Partial compensation for a 3-param tool.

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: extend an active claim's TTL without releasing it. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like release_claim, claim_next_task, and start_work, which touch the claim lifecycle differently.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('when a subagent's reproduction is taking longer than the configured role TTL') with a concrete example, and states when it will not work (an expired claim must release and re-claim instead). Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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