extend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it supplies only one trait: that activity normally auto-renews leases. It does not state that this is a mutation with side effects on lease lifetime, what happens if the extension fails or the claim expired, whether permissions are required, or 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 no filler, and the auto-renewal caveat is placed immediately after the action. It is perhaps too terse for the gaps it leaves, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the default-TTL behavior, failure modes, and return shape entirely unexplained. It gives just enough to guess the intent, not enough to call the tool confidently in edge cases.

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%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema and the description must compensate. It only indirectly gestures at ttl_minutes via 'extend' and never explains that claim_id identifies the lease being extended or what happens when ttl_minutes is omitted (its default is null) — the most consequential ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 the verb 'Extend' and the resource 'leases,' which is more specific than the bare name but only marginally so, since the description largely restates the tool name. It never distinguishes this from siblings like claim, release, or check, so an agent must infer that 'extend' means lengthening an existing lease's TTL rather than acquiring or releasing one.

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?

The parenthetical 'activity usually renews them automatically' is a real usage hint: it implies this call is only needed when the agent is about to be idle and wants to hold the claim. However, it never says 'use this when X, otherwise use Y,' and no alternative sibling is named, so the guidance stays implicit.

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