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

Adds substantial behavioral nuance beyond annotations: a claim is a mark, never a lock, stops nobody, overwrites on re-claim, and a stale claim is information. This supplements idempotentHint=true and clarifies non-destructive semantics. The addressing rule also discloses how autonomous vs. human sessions should behave.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action and rationale, the mark-versus-lock semantics, the addressing rule, and the follow-up tool. The main action is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with 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?

The description covers behavior, timing, ownership rules, and follow-up, but leaves the project parameter unexplained and doesn't mention what a successful claim returns. Given no output schema, these are minor omissions; the core behavior is well specified enough for correct invocation.

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%, with project lacking a description. The description adds context for handoff and note (e.g., 'saying whose it was') but does not explain the project parameter at all. It provides some meaning beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the missing project semantics.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Mark that you are taking an open handoff,' and clearly scopes the action with 'BEFORE working on it' and the parallel-session purpose. It also contrasts a claim with a lock and names arroway_close as the follow-up, making the tool's role distinct among siblings.

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 when to use it ('BEFORE working on it') and why (prevent duplicate work). It provides clear when-not guidance via the addressing rule: autonomous sessions must leave handoffs addressed to someone else, while only a human may decide otherwise. It also routes to arroway_close when work lands.

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