herdr_lease_reconcile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the dry-run default and the preservation guarantees, which is valuable. However, it never states what actually happens when dry_run is false—whether the retained failed lease is deleted, released, or otherwise altered—leaving a core side-effect 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 three short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the safety condition comes second, and the operational default is stated last. Every sentence 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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is not complete enough. It omits what the reconciliation actually does, how the required controller/fence parameters are used, and what the caller should expect in response. The safety framing is helpful but insufficient for confident invocation.

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, but it only adds meaning to dry_run by noting the default behavior. The five required parameters (controller_id, controller_lease_id, controller_fence_token, lease_type, lease_id) are left entirely unexplained beyond their names and formats, which is a major gap for a reconciliation tool.

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 ('Reconcile') and a specific resource ('retained failed lifecycle lease'), and adds a precise precondition ('only when the exact leased pane is confirmed absent'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many sibling tools, especially from lease_inventory and controller_release.

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 an explicit condition for use: only when the exact leased pane is confirmed absent. It also states a safety boundary: live panes and ambiguous writers are always preserved. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the when-to-use guidance is clear and actionable.

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