claim_smart_object

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the returned handle is canonical and intended for a downstream release step, but it does not explain the mutation itself (what state changes, whether a claim blocks other consumers, or how failure surfaces via the success flag).

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the return-shape line earns its place since no output schema exists. The inline type list is slightly verbose but functional rather than redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields, and the annotations carry the mutation-safety story. The remaining gap is precondition/failure behavior (e.g., what success=false or an unavailable slot means), but the essentials for calling the tool correctly are present.

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 both actor_label and definition_path are already fully documented in the schema. The description's only added signal is that the actor carries the Smart Object component, which is baseline-level value against a fully-covered 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 specific verb and resource ('Claim a free slot on the Smart Object component of an actor') with a scoping qualifier ('in the editor world'), which is far more precise than a tautology. It does not explicitly name its counterpart release_smart_object, so the agent must infer the pairing from the description alone.

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?

'Returns the canonical claim_handle ... for downstream release' implies the claim-then-release workflow, and 'free slot' hints at a precondition. However, it never states when to choose this over use_smart_object/find_smart_objects, nor what happens if no slot is free, so the selection guidance is only implied.

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