Atomically leases one pending NKS generation job for a worker and returns its catalog preset without loading the plugin or saving a file.
Atomically lease one pending NKS generation job for a worker. Returns its catalog preset without loading the plugin or saving a file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workerId | Yes | Non-empty worker identity. | |
| productSlug | Yes | Exact product slug. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the claim is atomic, and it does NOT load the plugin or save a file. That side-effect boundary is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose lease duration or expiry, which would have pushed it higher.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return value plus side-effect boundary second. No filler; every clause carries information.
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 usefully explains the return ("its catalog preset"). It is largely complete for the claim action, though it omits the lease lifecycle (duration/expiry, requirement to heartbeat or complete), which matters given the sibling tools around this workflow.
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 workerId and productSlug are already documented in the schema; the description adds no semantics beyond them. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.
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?
It states a specific verb ("lease") and resource ("NKS generation job") with clear scope ("one pending"). It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives it overlaps with (get_nks_generation_job, enqueue_nks_generation_jobs), so separation from those is left to inference.
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 phrase "for a worker" implies the caller is a job-consuming worker, but there is no explicit when/when-not, no mention of what to do after claiming (heartbeat/complete/fail), and no named alternative to route to. Guidance is only weakly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.