file_renew

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions matching authority and revision but does not explain what happens on mismatch, success/failure side effects, idempotency, or concurrency behavior for this 12-parameter mutation. This is insufficient for a safe and correct invocation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It gets straight to the point and avoids redundancy or extraneous details, making it appropriately concise for a well-named tool.

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 complexity (12 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely under-specified. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., needing a lease from file_reserve), and its relationship to siblings like file_release. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it reliably.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It vaguely references 'task-attempt authority and revision' which could relate to task_id, attempt_id, and expected_revision, but it does not map any of the 12 parameters to their purpose or how they interrelate. This leaves the schema's raw constraints alone, providing minimal added value.

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 action ('Renew'), the resource ('file lease'), and specific qualifiers ('active direct-v1', 'matching task-attempt authority and revision'). It succinctly distinguishes this from sibling tools like file_reserve and file_release by focusing on the renewal operation.

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 implies usage for renewing an existing lease but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to renew vs. release) or prerequisites. The phrase 'with matching task-attempt authority and revision' hints at required conditions but does not elaborate on contexts or exclusions.

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