renew_claim

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the lease mechanism (work recovery after caller vanishes) and the downside of long TTLs, which is useful context. However, it does not mention failure modes, idempotency, or what happens with invalid claims, leaving gaps.

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 two sentences that are dense with meaning. The first sentence states the action and condition; the second provides the alternative and rationale. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with two params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the core concept well but omits parameter semantics and expected return values. It is adequate for a simple renew operation but leaves important operational details unspecified.

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 (claim_id, lease_ttl_s). The names hint at their roles, but the description provides no units, defaults, or behavior for lease_ttl_s, nor does it clarify how the lease is identified. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Restart a live lease's clock because the experiment is still running.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like release_claims or invalidate_upstream by framing it as a renewal operation for an ongoing lease.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (while experiment is still running) and provides an alternative ('Use this instead of a very long TTL') with a strong rationale that explains the trade-off in lease recovery time. This is concrete, actionable guidance.

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