Start work

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the multi-step side effects (register/refresh agent, accept addressed work, claim scope) and the return value ('actionable overlap warnings'). It communicates stateful behavior agents would not otherwise know 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?

A single compact sentence, efficiently front-loaded with the when ('Enter one task before editing') before the action list. The list of steps is dense but each item earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

For a complex 18-parameter workflow tool, the description captures the essential journey (register, accept, claim, return warnings) and names the output. The required parameters are covered by the schema, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 every parameter is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'claim the declared scope' and 'overlap warnings' loosely maps to workspace_id/risk_tags/expected_files, but it adds no concrete format or syntax guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Enter one task before editing: register or refresh this agent, accept addressed work when needed, claim the declared scope') with a clear resource and purpose. It implicitly differentiates from siblings (inspect/update/transfer/finish) by being the task-entry and scope-claiming action, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 phrase 'Enter one task before editing' establishes when to use the tool as a pre-edit registration step, and 'accept addressed work when needed' gives conditional context. However, it never names alternatives such as update_work or finish_work or states when NOT to use it, leaving selection to inference.

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