renew

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool extends an existing claim's expiry, implying a mutation, but it does not disclose failure modes (e.g., what happens if the claim does not exist or has already lapsed), side effects, idempotency, or permissions. This is minimal coverage for a state-changing 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 concise sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and a mutation side effect; while not verbose, it lacks necessary detail that would not make it overly long if added. It earns a 3 for being concise but not appropriately sized for the information an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain the ttl_seconds parameter, does not describe error conditions (e.g., non-existent claim, already lapsed), does not state whether the operation is reversible, and gives no context about the return value or side effects. The description is far from sufficient for an agent to call the tool reliably.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter. 'claim_id' is self-explanatory from its name, but 'ttl_seconds' is completely unexplained—its purpose, format, default behavior, and interaction with the claim's expiry are all unclear. The description adds no value beyond the bare schema, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 verb 'extend' and the resource 'existing claim's expiry', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'claim' or 'reserve' that likely create new claims. The phrase 'existing claim' implies it operates on a claim that already exists, giving it a distinct purpose. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 implies the tool should be used to extend a claim before it lapses, providing a timing condition, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'claim', 'reserve', or 'release'. There are no exclusions or alternative references, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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