architect_task_heartbeat

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

Annotations declare this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds nothing: it does not say whether a mismatched or expired lease_token is an error, what the renewal window is, or whether a failed renewal invalidates the attempt. For a non-idempotent mutation with no annotation detail, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single six-word sentence is maximally front-loaded, but here brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy — nothing in the sentence earns its place beyond restating the name.

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 four required parameters, no output schema, sparse annotations, and heavy interaction with the claim/complete/runtime_tick siblings, the description needs lifecycle and failure semantics. It provides none, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly beyond guessing.

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 25% — only workspace is documented. The description implies lease_token must be the currently valid token, which adds a little meaning, but run_id, task_id, and lease_token remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb "Renew" plus the resource "active attempt lease" identifies the operation, so an agent can tell it is not architect_task_claim or architect_task_complete. However, "exact" is unexplained jargon and the description never says what a lease is, what renewing extends, or how this fits the claim/complete 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus architect_task_claim or architect_task_complete, no required cadence (heartbeat interval), and no statement about what to do if renewal fails or the lease has lapsed. The agent must infer the entire calling context from the name.

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