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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation. The description goes well beyond: a 409 failure mode with the precise blocker-state rule (excludes completed, canceled and desbloqueante states such as In Review), that the error message lists blockers with their states, that the effect is instantly visible to the UI and to get_issue, and how to release the lock.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the lock semantics, then failure modes, then the release path — a sensible order with no filler. The closing sentence about agentCloseState is tangential to a tool whose only parameter is `id` and slightly dilutes the focus.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it writes, when it 409s, what the error contains, who can see the state, and how to undo it. Nothing material about calling it safely is missing.

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 100% and the single `id` property already documents UUID vs. readable identifier (TEAM-123) and the multi-workspace disambiguation rule. The description adds no further meaning about `id`, so it neither compensates nor needs to; the baseline holds since the schema does all the work.

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?

Starts with a concrete verb + resource ("Toma una issue") and immediately disambiguates the concept: a soft lock that is explicitly "distinto del assignee", with the exact fields it mutates (agentWorkingBy, agentWorkingSince). The sibling relationship to release_issue and get_issue is named, so an agent can pick it apart from assignee/state-change tools without opening a schema.

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?

States when to use it (to signal you are working on the issue right now), the exact conditions under which it must not be used / will fail (another agent holds it, or unresolved blocked_by dependencies), and the counterpart call to undo it (release_issue). It even explains how other agents and the UI observe the claim, which is the practical selection criterion.

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