Reserve (Teamwork)

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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/readOnly, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the conflict rule with the other owner, the per-item status/conflictWith/reservedBy result shape, and the explicit warning that a solo project returns {isTeamwork: false} rather than failing. That is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs before locking elements.

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 purpose, then behavior, then the return shape, then the prerequisite, then the solo-project caveat. The inline output listing is somewhat dense but is justified because no output schema is supplied. No filler sentences.

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 including per-element errors and the warning field, and it covers the no-op case. Combined with the annotations' safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly. Only the two boolean parameters remain unexplained.

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 elements, objectSets (with the full enum listing), enableDialogs and hotlinkCacheManagement. The description only restates the objectSets examples ('Composites', 'LayerSettings') and never explains enableDialogs or hotlinkCacheManagement, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource ('reserves elements and/or object sets') and immediately states the intent ('so you can edit them'), which clearly separates it from release_elements among the siblings. The conflict rule ('elements reserved by someone else cannot be taken; the result names the owner') further pins down the exact semantics.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Check get_teamwork_status first') named by sibling, plus a valuable when-not-to-use case (solo non-Teamwork projects are a no-op, not an error). It stops short of contrasting with release_elements or stating when reservation is unnecessary, so it is clear context without full alternative routing.

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