use_spatial_blackboard

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive/highlight non-idempotent writes), the description discloses real behavioral traits: lease acquire fails if the resource is held, set accepts a payload with coordinates plus optional ttl_seconds, and the return shape is {ok, action, items[]|entry|lease}. It does not add detail about permission requirements or what specifically is destroyed on delete, but the added failure-mode and TTL context is substantive.

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 purpose and the sibling routing rule are front-loaded, which is good, but the inline enumeration of all nine action values restates the schema enum and consumes space without adding information. It is compact for a 15-parameter tool yet contains some redundant structured data.

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 complex multi-action tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape plus the key failure and TTL semantics, which is more than most. It still omits prerequisites, defaults (beyond the schema's), and richer lease-conflict behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 100% with 15 documented parameters, so the baseline is 3 per the rubric. The description adds meaning for a few fields (payload/coordinates, ttl_seconds, lease acquire-vs-release behavior) but is silent on many others such as intention_id, topic_prefix, include_expired, limit, and sender/agent_id, so it does not exceed the schema.

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 names a concrete domain (multi-agent spatial coordination: topics, collision alerts, mutex region leases) and enumerates the supported actions, so an agent knows what the tool manipulates. It also explicitly separates itself from set_relation. The only weakness is that the many-action surface makes the core purpose slightly diffuse.

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 an explicit routing rule: use this instead of set_relation when coordinating transient multi-agent collision alerts and mutex region leases, which implicitly tells the agent when not to use it (persistent relations). However, it only contrasts against one of fifteen siblings and offers no broader context on when a blackboard is preferable to other coordination tools.

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