herdr_controller_renew

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions renewing a lease without explaining side effects, constraints (e.g., ttl_seconds bounds), failure conditions, or whether it requires the caller to be the current holder. This is minimal and insufficient.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential usage and parameter information, so it is not appropriately sized for the complexity of the 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, behavioral details, and usage context. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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 explain the parameters. It does not define controller_id, controller_lease_id, controller_fence_token, or ttl_seconds. The vague phrase 'exact Herdr pane and identity' does not map to these parameters, leaving the agent without meaning beyond raw property names.

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 a specific verb ('renew') and resource ('active controller lease'), and hints at the requirement of an exact pane and identity. It distinguishes itself from controller_acquire/release/takeover by its unique verb, but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them. Clear but not fully differentiated from siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like controller_resume, controller_takeover, or controller_release. There is no context about the lifecycle of leases or selection criteria. The description only states what the tool does, not when to invoke it.

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