memento Team claims

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose valuable traits: a 24-hour lifetime, renewal by re-claiming, and the failure signal 'ok false names the session that holds it'. It does not describe the success response shape, whether re-claiming by the current holder is a no-op, or whether stale claims can be force-taken.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and rationale, followed by conflict handling and lifetime. Every sentence carries information; only minor tightening is possible.

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 three-parameter coordination tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: when to claim, what contention looks like, and how long a claim survives. Success-path return details remain unstated, which is the only notable gap.

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%, so all three parameters (path, team, session) are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the session concept via the conflict message but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (claim a path) plus the motivation: preventing parallel agent sessions from overwriting each other. The purpose is unmistakable, but it never names the sibling tools (release, who) to draw an explicit boundary between claiming and releasing/checking.

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 clear triggering context ('before editing it') and prescribes behavior on contention: 'work on something else or wait', plus 'claim again to renew'. It stops short of naming alternatives such as release when finished or who to inspect holders, which would have made routing explicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the committed-edit precondition, but does not explain what happens if the path is not held, if the edit is not committed, whether the operation is idempotent, or what success/failure looks like.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The verb, resource, scope, and precondition are all stated efficiently.

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 simple release operation with fully documented parameters, the description states the core action and precondition. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves failure behavior and return semantics unexplained.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a little context via 'this session holds' and 'its edit is committed,' but does not explain the team parameter or add 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?

The description gives a specific verb (Release), a specific resource (a path this session holds), and a condition (when its edit is committed). It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative claim, but the possession language makes the counterpart relationship clear enough.

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?

The clause 'when its edit is committed' provides a timing condition for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, nor does it name claim or who as alternatives, so usage is only implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read via 'which session holds... if any', but never states that it is non-mutating, what it returns (session identifier? null/no-holder?), or that results are scoped to the team namespace — a constraint that only appears in the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is not bloated, though the brevity shades into under-specification given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and no statement of what the tool returns. For a point-lookup whose whole value is the returned holder identity (or absence thereof), leaving the response shape and the team-scoping behavior undocumented is a material gap.

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 100%, with both 'path' and 'team' documented in the schema, including the important detail that claims are visible only within a team. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description 'Which session holds a path, if any' does convey a lookup operation over a path, which an agent can map to the claim/release siblings. However, it never names the sibling tools or says explicitly that this is the read-only counterpart to claim, and the opaque name 'who' means the description alone must establish the domain.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative ('use claim to take the path, release to free it'). The agent must infer from the sibling names that this is the pre-claim check.

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