file_reserve

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds meaningful behavior: reservations expire after TTL and check_only toggles conflict-checking without creating reservations. It does not contradict annotations, and this context helps the agent understand lifecycle behavior.

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 only three sentences, front-loads the core action, and each sentence adds distinct value: what it does, the check_only mode, and TTL expiry. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite having 16 parameters, no output schema, and complex coordination modes, the description omits important behavior such as conflict outcomes, return values, release/renewal expectations, and the difference between legacy and direct-v1 modes. It provides a useful overview but is incomplete for such a feature-rich tool.

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 only 44%, and the description does not compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It adds little beyond the schema for check_only and TTL, while leaving actor/agent modes, task_id, workspace_id, claim_token, coordination_mode, and other fields unexplained in prose.

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 ('Reserve') with a clear resource ('files or glob patterns') and purpose ('prevent conflicts between agents'). This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling tools like file_release and file_renew by its core action.

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?

It provides some usage context by explaining the reservation's purpose and explicitly mentions check_only=true for conflict checks without reserving. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over file_release or file_renew, nor does it mention prerequisites or follow-up actions.

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