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

Goes well beyond annotations: the checkpoint SURVIVES release + reclaim so a different runtime can resume, and the call performs a full lease reset to the lease length from the moment it lands. The token-loss fallback (RTSC-758) and its exception are disclosed, none of which the annotations convey.

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 survival guarantee, and every sentence carries real information. It is dense with parentheticals and em-dash asides, so it reads as packed rather than crisp, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-behavior burden and does so (checkpoint persists, lease resets). It does not state failure modes — e.g. what happens if the claim was lost entirely or the identifier is wrong — which would matter for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 67% and the description meaningfully extends the claimToken parameter: omit only if lost, and a bare shared workspace key always requires it. `note` content structure is covered by the schema; `identifier` gets no elaboration beyond the required-field fact, which is the one gap.

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: record a handoff checkpoint on a claimed issue, with contents enumerated (done, next, gotchas, branch/artifacts). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `heartbeat` by defining the relationship explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule: this is the PREFERRED call at any long-silence boundary because it does everything `heartbeat` does plus the note. It also states when to pass claimToken and the exception (bare shared workspace key always needs it).

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