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

Annotations already declare this as destructive, non-read-only, idempotent, and closed-world, and the description adds substantial context: server-side binding to the acting human, one claim per source tool, refusal during imports, and billing-refusal behavior with tellHuman. That goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by precise constraints and then error/billing behavior. Despite its length, each sentence carries operational value and there is no 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 destructive claim operation with no output schema, the description covers the action, source of the id, identity binding, import refusal condition, and billing failure path. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and handle the main refusal modes.

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 both parameters already document the required memberId and name provenance. The description reinforces that memberId must come from the human’s explicit choice, but it does not add new syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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: claiming an imported placeholder identity and absorbing its history. It clearly distinguishes this action from sibling tools like list_claimable_ghosts and dismiss_ghost_prompt by explaining the exact effect on the human account.

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 says to call it ONLY with an id the human chose from list_claimable_ghosts, never by inference, and never for anyone but that human. It also states the one-placeholder-per-source constraint and the refusal condition during a running import.

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