reserve

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the mutual-exclusion guarantee, that a conflicting request is refused with who/why/until-when, that re-asking extends the TTL, and how exclusivity changes blocking behavior. These are exactly the concurrency semantics an agent needs and none are in the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative and consequence, then a compact Args block with no filler. Slightly long in the refusal parenthetical but every clause conveys behavior, so it is close to optimal.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. With annotations covering safety and the description covering timing, refusal, extension, and all four parameters, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 carries the full burden and does: ABSOLUTE paths with folders-and-patterns semantics, reason as one sentence, ttl_min range 1–1440 plus extension behavior, and exclusive's False=shared meaning. Every parameter gains meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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?

States a specific verb (reserve) and resource (files), plus the scope of the reservation (files, folders' contents, patterns). It is clearly distinct from siblings like release, reservations, and read, which an agent can tell apart without opening any schema.

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?

"Reserve files BEFORE editing them" gives an explicit timing/context for use, which is the critical when-to-use signal. It does not explicitly name the alternative (e.g., call release to free a reservation) or any when-not 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.