claim_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses atomicity, ownership constraints, takeover rules, lease renewal, lease clamping, and that expiry is checked during tool calls without background timers.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds compact lifecycle details. Every sentence provides useful behavioral context without redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 is strong for a concurrency-sensitive claim operation, especially given the output schema covers return values. Minor gaps remain around explicit sibling-tool selection and message_id parameter semantics.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It explains lease_seconds meaningfully through renewal and clamping behavior, but message_id is only implied by 'unread message' and lacks explicit semantics or constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource: atomically claiming an unread message for this MCP server process. The scope is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as release_message, mark_read, or receive_messages.

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 description explains claim lifecycle rules, including active-claim restrictions, renewal behavior, and expired-claim takeover. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like receive_messages or mark_read.

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