expiries_renew

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains side effects: creates a new item, closes the old one, preserves history via renewedFrom, details default expiresAt calculation based on kind, and notes the behavior when already expired. It also discloses the return values (item and previous). This is exemplary transparency.

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 paragraph that front-loads the core action ('Renew an expiry item') and then elaborates on behavior and defaults. Every sentence adds value, with no filler. It is appropriately sized given the complexity of the operation.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the key contextual points: what is created, what is closed, default calculations, and return values. It lacks explicit error handling or edge-case descriptions but is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 86%, so most parameters are documented. The description adds significant semantic value beyond the schema by explaining default behaviors: without expiresAt, the validity period is added based on kind; provider defaults to old provider; validFrom defaults to old expiry or today when expired. This clarifies how parameters interact, exceeding the baseline.

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 a specific action (renew) and resource (expiry item), and details the outcome: creates the next one and closes the old one. It is distinct from siblings like expiries_create or expiries_update because it describes the renewal lifecycle (closing old, creating new with inherited properties).

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?

The description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as expiries_update or expiries_create. Usage is implied (you renew when you want to roll an expiry forward), but there is no explicit when/not-when guidance or mention of sibling tools.

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