Reserve the chassis for a time-boxed period, returning the token required to authorize mutating operations. Prevents conflicts by granting exclusive access for the specified owner.
Take a time-boxed reservation. Returns the token every mutating tool requires.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | ||
| ttl_seconds | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the reservation is time-boxed and that the returned token is a required input for mutations, which is useful. However, it does not explain what happens when the reservation expires, whether it can be renewed, or whether the reservation causes side effects beyond returning a token.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Take a time-boxed reservation'), followed by the important token detail. Both sentences earn their place, though the lack of parameter documentation limits the overall usefulness.
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 two parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. It correctly conveys the token purpose, but omits critical details about the owner and TTL semantics, reservation lifetime, and any renewal or release behavior.
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 explain either parameter. It never clarifies what 'owner' should be or how 'ttl_seconds' behaves beyond the default, leaving the agent to guess at required argument 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 tool's function: taking a time-boxed reservation and returning a token required by mutating tools. It differentiates from sibling mutating tools by positioning this as a prerequisite reservation step, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.
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 second sentence gives a clear usage signal: this tool must be called before mutating tools because it provides the required token. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of reservation-before-mutation is strongly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.