renew_file_reservations

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context: repeated calls stack extensions, expired reservations are silently skipped, no matches returns zero with an empty array, and the response shape {renewed, file_reservations} with old and new expiries. This goes well beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before filtering rules and return/edge-case detail. Dense but nearly every clause carries needed information; the return-shape clause is arguably the most expendable but still 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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates by describing the return payload and the zero-match case. Combined with 100% schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema does not: the interaction rule that two non-empty filters must both match and that omission or empty filters impose no restriction. It adds combinatorial semantics rather than just restating field docs.

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 precise verb and resource ('extend your active reservations by extend_seconds past their current expiry') and immediately differentiates from siblings by naming file_reservation_paths for the expired case. An agent can distinguish this from file_reservation_paths and release_file_reservations without opening schemas.

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 covers the when-not case ('Expired reservations are not renewed; reserve them again with file_reservation_paths') and gives the alternative tool by name. It also clarifies filter-combination behavior (omit both for all, empty imposes no restriction, two nonempty must both match), leaving little to inference.

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