herdr_owned_reviewer_cleanup

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

With no annotations provided, the description properly carries the safety burden: it states that dry-run is the default, that only identity-matched idle/done reviewers may be closed, and that blocked, working, and ambiguous leases are preserved. It could also reveal what actually happens during closure or on auth/fencing failures, but the core behavioral profile is well covered.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary behavior, includes the critical dry-run default, and adds safety constraints without filler. Every clause adds useful information.

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?

The description is adequate for selecting and safely invoking the tool, and it covers key behavioral safeguards. However, there is no output schema and the description does not say what the inspect/close result looks like, nor what read_lines controls; ambiguous lease handling is also implicit. These gaps make it minimally viable rather than fully complete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It partially does: 'dry-run is the default' explains dry_run, and 'for one controller' plus 'identity-matched' clarify the role of the controller identifiers. However, read_lines is entirely unexplained, and controller_lease_id/controller_fence_token rely on inference rather than explicit description.

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 action (inspect and optionally close), the resource (reviewer leases), the scope (one controller), and precise eligibility criteria (identity-matched idle/done). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like herdr_owned_reviewer_list and herdr_owned_reviewer_close.

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 clearly communicates when to use the tool: to inspect or safely clean idle/done reviewer leases for a controller. The dry-run default and preservation guarantees also tell the agent when the tool is conservative. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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