Renew a held resource lease to prevent expiration and sustain continuous collaboration. Specify the lease ID and generation to extend the lease.
Renew a resource lease held by the caller.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lease_id | Yes | ||
| generation | Yes | ||
| binding_token | No | Opaque token returned by this agent's join_session or plan_session. Required for reliable identity when logical agents share an MCP connection. | |
| lease_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 mentions that the lease must be held by the caller, but gives no information about idempotency, failure modes, side effects, or authorization requirements. The description is too sparse to help an agent understand the operational behavior of the tool.
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 filler, achieving maximum conciseness. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation and the key action is front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity results in under-specification, which slightly detracts from structural quality.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% parameter schema coverage, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the required parameters, preconditions, success criteria, or any side effects. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided information alone.
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?
The schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'binding_token' has a description). The tool description does not mention any parameter, nor does it clarify the meaning or relationships between 'lease_id', 'generation', 'lease_seconds', and 'binding_token'. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent to guess at parameter semantics.
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 the action (renew) and the target (a resource lease held by the caller). It includes a relevant constraint (held by the caller) that adds specificity. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'renew_lease', which likely serves a similar purpose, so it lacks clear differentiation.
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 alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having claimed the resource first) or the relationship to 'claim_resource' and 'release_resource' tools. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.