task_heartbeat

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important timing context of heartbeating before lease expiry, but does not explain what happens on an expired lease or any rate-limit 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 two short sentences and front-loads the tool's purpose. Every sentence earns its place by defining the action and giving operational timing guidance.

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 simple lease-renewal tool, the description covers purpose and timing, and annotations cover safety. However, it leaves the required id parameter semantically unexplained and does not describe error behavior when a lease is no longer valid.

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 coverage is only 50%: leaseId is well documented in the schema, but id has no description. The description does not compensate by clarifying what id represents, and it adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema's existing leaseId explanation.

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 and resource: renew a running task lease. This is clear and distinct from sibling task tools like task_claim or task_update, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast itself with 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?

It gives a clear usage condition: long-lived workers should heartbeat before lease expiry. This tells the agent when to call it, but it does not state when not to use it or name an alternative tool.

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