heartbeat_claim

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: renewing a live lease, owner must match original claim owner, defaults to connection's actor. This adds meaningful context beyond annotations.

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 brief sentences with no fluff, both sentences add value. Could be slightly more structured but is appropriately concise.

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 an output schema present, return values may be documented. However, the description omits precondition details (e.g., what happens if card not claimed or owner mismatch). The overall completeness is adequate but could be improved with edge-case guidance.

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%. The description only explains the 'owner' parameter (matching and default). It does not add meaning for 'card_id' (required) or 'ttl_seconds' (default 3600), leaving two of three parameters semantically unexplained.

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 tool renews a live lease on a card using the verb 'renew' and specifies the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'claim_card' and 'release_claim' by implying it is for extending an existing claim.

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 gives context for when to use it ('while still working it') and provides important behavior on owner matching and default. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use, but the context signals list sibling tools, making the usage scenario clear.

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