qq_attach

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key mutation behaviors: the exclusivity semantics, the owner-tag mechanism, and the failure mode on conflict. It stops short of describing what happens on repeated calls or how the claim is released, but the core behavioral profile is transparent.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The most important constraint ('exclusive') is front-loaded, and the owner-tag purpose and failure behavior follow efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, exclusivity, failure mode, usage timing, and parameter semantics. Minor gaps remain—release behavior and repeated-call semantics—but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0% (the schema only gives the tag's string type), so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the tag identifies the owner, requires uniqueness, and gives a concrete example ('your session id'). This adds real semantic meaning beyond the bare 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 ('Claims'), a specific resource ('QQ bridge'), and a distinguishing scope qualifier ('for THIS conversation (exclusive)'). This makes the tool's exclusive-claim nature explicit and clearly differentiates it from siblings like qq_send and qq_poll_inbox, which serve entirely different functions.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance ('Call once when you start handling QQ') and describes the conflict condition ('Fails if another conversation already claimed it'). However, it does not mention the complementary sibling qq_detach or explicitly state when not to call it, leaving some routing to inference.

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