Claim task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful behavior details: atomicity, optimistic versioning, and the lease token requirement. Still, it omits failure modes (e.g., version mismatch, task already claimed) and lease lifecycle behavior.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and packs in atomicity, versioning, and lease token guidance. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff 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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, plus five parameters and a complex sibling group, the description is too sparse. It lacks failure semantics, idempotency behavior, lease expiration details, and explicit guidance on how this tool relates to task_allocate, task_start, and task_commit.

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 must compensate, but it does not explain any parameter directly. 'Optimistic versioning' only implicitly hints at expectedVersion, and 'lease token' loosely relates to leaseSeconds. taskId, workerId, and idempotencyKey semantics remain undocumented.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Atomically claim'), the resource ('a ready task'), and the mechanism ('optimistic versioning'). It conveys the core purpose distinctly from generic wording, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like task_allocate or task_start.

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 'Atomically claim a ready task' implies this is the step before worker mutations, and the lease-token requirement gives downstream context. However, it does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools or mention exclusions such as tasks not in ready state.

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