herdr_controller_acquire

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the tool returns an ephemeral fence token and that the lease is exclusive. However, it does not disclose failure conditions, whether acquiring can invalidate an existing lease, TTL behavior, or permission requirements, which are significant for a lease-acquisition operation.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then immediately adds the most important behavioral detail—the ephemeral fence token. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters with zero schema-description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It explains what the tool returns and why it matters, but omits parameter meanings, failure semantics, exclusivity conflicts, and lease lifecycle considerations, leaving an agent to guess at critical invocation details.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the required parameters. The phrase 'named project' loosely hints at controller_id, but authority_ref and authority_sha256 remain completely unexplained, and ttl_seconds behavior is left entirely to the schema. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Acquire'), a precise resource ('the first exclusive controller lease for the named project'), and a distinguishing trait ('first') that separates it from sibling tools like resume, takeover, renew, and release. It clearly identifies what the tool accomplishes and its return value.

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 clear usage context: this is the initial acquisition of an exclusive controller lease, and the returned fence token is required for every coordination mutation. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when not to use it, but 'first exclusive' strongly implies this is for initial acquisition rather than renewal or takeover.

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