Say you are still working on an effect

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important consequences: lease expiry records the effect as UNKNOWN, the report is refused, the hold is gone, and retrying is prohibited. This is rich behavioral context and does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the primary call instruction, followed by concrete trigger examples and a compact failure-handling protocol. Every sentence contributes necessary operational information without filler.

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 safety-critical keep-alive tool, it covers when to call, why it matters, what happens on failure, and what to do next. The only notable gap is the untold semantics of the two required parameters, which keeps it just short of fully complete.

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 coverage is only 33%: extend_seconds is described, but the required effect_id and lease_token are not. The description never explicitly explains what these parameters mean or where an agent should obtain them, relying instead on general lease/effect jargon, so it does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific action: periodically call to extend a lease during a long authorized action. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling lifecycle tools by naming ratchet_begin_effect as the recovery path and framing this tool as the keep-alive/extend operation.

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 explicit conditions for use ('when work turns out to take longer than the lease you asked for') with concrete examples, and explicit conditions for stopping ('If it fails with lease_expired or lease_lost, STOP'). It also names the alternative to call instead, ratchet_begin_effect.

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