file_reservation_paths

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

Annotations only provide coarse hints (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false); the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the exact return shape {granted, conflicts}, that conflicts do NOT fail the call, that nothing blocks the edit itself, the git-guard behavior for commits, that re-reserving an already-held path updates it, and the expiry model. This is rich, non-obvious disclosure.

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 the core purpose in the first sentence, then layers return shape, conflict behavior, and lifecycle routing. Dense and largely waste-free, though the git-guard sentence is somewhat tangential to selection and could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the return object ({granted, conflicts} and their contents) and the non-failing conflict semantics. Combined with the fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only marginal parameter-level meaning (re-reserving updates an existing hold) and does not clarify semantics like ttl_seconds or idempotency_key beyond what the schema states.

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 (Reserve) and resource (repository-relative paths or globs) plus the intent ('so other agents know what you are editing'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling renew_file_reservations and release_file_reservations, which the description explicitly names.

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?

Names the lifecycle alternatives explicitly ('Extend with renew_file_reservations and release with release_file_reservations when done'), giving clear context for related actions. It does not state when not to reserve, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance, but routing to siblings is unambiguous.

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