Renew debugger lease

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it is thin. It does not state the default lease length, what happens when a lease lapses (does the session die?), whether the session must be currently valid, or what errors surface on an invalid sessionId. The only real disclosure is that the lease can be extended rather than reset.

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 short sentences, action first and usage guidance second, with zero filler. Nothing here could be cut without losing 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately but omits lease mechanics (default duration, expiry consequences, recovery path) that an agent needs to call it safely. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 0%, and the description mentions only one parameter indirectly ('optionally changing its length'), which usefully communicates that leaseTtlMs is optional and represents duration. sessionId is left unexplained beyond 'this task holds', and units/defaults for the TTL are only inferable from the parameter name and schema bounds.

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 (Renew) and resource (idle lease of a Raw CDP or network session), and scopes it to a session 'this task holds', which an agent can distinguish from the session-listing and lifecycle siblings. It stops short of naming the adjacent tools (e.g. browser_debugger_recover or browser_debugger_sessions) that could be confused with it.

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?

'Use during long pauses between calls' is a concrete usage trigger, not an implied one. However, it gives no exclusion condition and does not point to the alternative to use when the lease has already expired, which is the main decision boundary an agent faces here.

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