lease_acquire

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does well: it states non-blocking semantics, that re-acquiring extends the lease, and that leases expire automatically. It does not detail what happens when the lease is already held by someone else, but the 'Try to' phrasing implies the operation may fail.

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 short sentences, each carrying meaningful information: the core action, renewal behavior, and expiry behavior. There is no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple lease-acquisition tool, the description covers the essential behavioral context: non-blocking, renewal, and expiration. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required in the description. The only minor gap is explicit conflict handling when another actor holds the lease.

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 67%, with key and project_id already described in the schema. The description adds some meaning by associating the key with a 'named lease' and implying ttl_seconds drives lease expiration, but it does not explicitly explain ttl_seconds units or behavior beyond 'expire on their own.'

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?

The description clearly states the action: acquire a named lease on a shared work area, and adds key semantics like non-blocking, renewal, and expiry. It is specific enough to be distinguished from lease_release by obvious semantic opposition, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 description implies usage: use this to acquire or renew a lease, especially when non-blocking behavior is desired. It gives one concrete usage tip (re-taking extends) but does not explicitly contrast with lease_release or state when not to use the tool.

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