workspace_acquire

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the LEASE_BUSY error condition, the renewal pattern, and explicitly states 'Does not write project files'. This goes beyond the bare annotations (all false) and helps the agent understand side effects.

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?

The description is four sentences, each serving a purpose: core action, usage timing, error handling, and renewal semantics. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and only three optional parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: acquisition, renewal, busy state, and the no-write guarantee. It does not mention lease duration or what happens on expiration, but these are less critical given the output schema and sibling context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all parameters. It explains `project` ('registered project id; default demo') and `lease_id` ('Pass the same lease_id to renew'), but does not explain `mode` beyond the schema default of 'exclusive'. It partially compensates but leaves the mode parameter underspecified.

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 opens with 'Acquire or renew an exclusive workspace lease for a registered project', which is a specific verb+resource (acquire/renew + lease) and clearly distinguishes from workspace_release and workspace_status by focusing on the acquisition/renewal lifecycle.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use before mutating tools' and gives concrete guidance on handling LEASE_BUSY ('do not retry blindly') and renewal ('Pass the same lease_id to renew by activity'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like workspace_release or workspace_status as comparisons.

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