memkernel_heartbeat_lease

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the boolean failure semantic and the required agent reaction, which is real behavioral value beyond the schema. However, it omits prerequisites (is this call idempotent? does it require auth?), the recommended heartbeat interval, and whether extension can fail for reasons other than lease loss.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and then the failure contract. Every clause earns its place and the guidance is actionable.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain return values, and the boolean meaning it does give is a bonus. Still, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the definition leaves an agent guessing about heartbeat cadence and about what file_path/fencing_token must contain.

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 there are two required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Neither 'file_path' nor the non-obvious 'fencing_token' concept is mentioned; the phrase 'a lease you hold' never explains that identity is conveyed via these two fields. This is the weakest dimension for the definition.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Extend a lease you hold by its original TTL.' An agent can distinguish this from memkernel_acquire_lease and memkernel_release_lease by the 'extend an already-held lease' framing. It stops short of explicitly naming the siblings it is not.

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?

Implies the usage context ('a lease you hold') and gives a clear failure-path instruction: on False, 'stop editing and re-acquire,' which implicitly routes to memkernel_acquire_lease. It does not state when to heartbeat (cadence relative to TTL) or when not to call it, so guidance remains inferred rather than explicit.

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