Extend an active NKS generation lease for a preset to keep a worker’s ownership valid and prevent job expiry.
Extend an unexpired NKS generation lease owned by this worker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| presetId | Yes | Stable NKS preset catalog ID. | |
| workerId | Yes | Lease owner identity. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds the meaningful precondition that the lease must be 'unexpired'. It does not disclose what happens when the lease has lapsed, whether renewal is bounded, or what a failed heartbeat returns. With annotations covering the mutation/safety profile, this is an appropriate 3.
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 tight sentence with no waste, and the key precondition ('unexpired') is foregrounded. Size is appropriate for a narrow lease-heartbeat operation.
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 state-mutating lease tool with no output schema, the description omits what the heartbeat returns and how an expired/foreign-owner lease is handled — the two failure modes an agent will most plausibly hit. Annotations and full schema coverage carry the rest, so gaps are real but not severe.
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 both presetId and workerId are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'owned by this worker' reinforces the workerId role but adds no format, constraint, or error semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 given the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (Extend) and resource (NKS generation lease) with the ownership scope ('owned by this worker'). An agent can distinguish it from claim/complete/fail/enqueue siblings by the 'extend an existing lease' semantics, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 word 'heartbeat' in the name plus 'Extend an unexpired ... lease' implies periodic renewal while a generation job is in flight, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the sibling lease-lifecycle tools. Usage must be inferred from the surrounding tool family.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.