claim_card

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure. It states that the card is promoted to the user's card, enters the review queue tomorrow, and the anchor gets merged only at this moment. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or failure scenarios, but covers the primary state changes well.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: target type, outcome, timing, and trigger are all included in two focused clauses. Every sentence carries essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given this is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description addresses the main user-visible effects and call trigger. It could detail return values or preconditions, but for a direct 'claim' action, the context is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema already describes the single `id` parameter with 100% coverage. The tool description refines that the id belongs to a ref=true card, which adds slight context, but it doesn't significantly expand beyond what's in 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 names a specific verb and resource: '认领一张参考卡（ref=true 的包卡）' and explains the conversion to the user's card. It clearly distinguishes claim_card from sibling tools like review_card or delete_card by indicating the promotion/ownership action.

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?

It provides an explicit trigger: call this when the user clicks '认领/收编' in the detail panel. It doesn't list exclusions or alternatives, but the UI condition is concrete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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