claim_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: refusal semantics, returning the holder, hierarchical folder coverage that blocks ancestor/descendant claims, relative-path resolution against the session's project, TTL expiry, and lock death with the session. This is real behavioral disclosure an agent cannot infer from 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its timing, then failure mode, then scoping rules, then lifetime. Every clause carries operational information; nothing is 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?

There is no output schema, and the description explains the refusal case returns the holder but not what a successful claim returns (lock identifier? confirmation?), which an agent may need before writing. Otherwise complete for a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that a relative path resolves from this session's project and that a folder path implies subtree coverage. ttl defaults are restated from the schema but the hierarchy semantics for `path` are genuinely new.

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 ('cooperatively lock a path') plus the motivating timing ('before editing it'), so an agent immediately knows this is a mutual-exclusion claim, distinct from the read/write state tools. It does not explicitly name its counterpart release_path, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Strong guidance: use before editing, expect fail-fast refusal, and on refusal 'coordinate or pick another territory instead of retrying in a loop' — an explicit anti-pattern. It stops short of naming release_path as the exit path or describing multi-path claim ordering strategies.

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