resource_acquire

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'advisory' but does not explain what that implies (e.g., non-enforcement, no blocking), nor does it mention success/failure behavior, whether the lease can be renewed, or any side effects. For a mutating tool, 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?

The description is two sentences long and conveys the essential purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat minimal. It lacks explanation of return values, error cases, or the relationship to resource_release/resource_check, but the schema covers parameter details, so it is acceptable but not 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema—it mentions exclusive/shared access, which maps to lease_type, but otherwise relies on the schema's already-detailed parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Acquire') with a clear resource ('advisory lease on a resource'), and explicitly states the purpose of coordinating exclusive or shared access between agents. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like resource_release and resource_check.

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 states it is 'Used for coordinating exclusive or shared access between agents,' which gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses a small portion of the guidelines.

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