claim_need

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the internal state changes (sets claimed_by and status=in_progress), the failure mode, the non-completion boundary, and the side effect on needs.json. This gives an agent a clear model of what to expect.

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, each carrying distinct information: purpose, operational effect/failure mode, alternative route, and side effect. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource and contains zero 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations are absent, the description covers purpose, effect, failure condition, non-completion boundary, recommended follow-up tool, and side effect. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what will happen.

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 already has 100% coverage of both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by explaining that 'claimer becomes the worker' and that claiming sets status, reinforcing the claimer semantics, but it does not add format details 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 precise verb ('soft-claim'), the target resource ('open or funded Need'), and the effect ('claimer becomes the worker'), while distinguishing itself from complete_need in the same description. This separates it from all sibling tools without requiring schema inspection.

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 tells the agent when to use it (on claimable Needs) and when not to use it to complete work, directing it to complete_need with evidence_links. 'Fails if the Need is not claimable' further establishes the intended precondition.

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