claim_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: lease acquisition, refusal semantics, the takeover prerequisite, the `warning` follow-up path, and the side effect that `worktree: true` copies files but not commands. It still leaves the return shape of the first claim, permission/auth requirements, and the meaning of "warning" undefined.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: claim semantics and refusal rules come first, then the operational conventions. Every sentence carries actionable content, though the git branch format and PR comment marker make the final third feel like a checklist appended to the core call semantics.

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 multi-device leasing tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is close to complete on the operational side. The remaining gaps are the undocumented `full` parameter and the unstated structure of the claim response and of a "warning," both of which the agent would need before acting.

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 schema alone gives no semantics for any of the 5 booleans. The description compensates for most of them, explaining `takeover` (requires person agreement and an offline peer), `details` (returned on the first claim), and `worktree` (files-only copy on the branch). Only `full` is left entirely unexplained, and `task_id` is only indirectly illuminated by the branch-naming rule.

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 opening clause names a specific verb and resource ("Claim a task") and adds the distinguishing mechanic of a lease, which separates it from create_task/complete_task/list_tasks at a glance. It never explicitly contrasts itself with a sibling claim path, so it stops short of the top tier.

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?

It states precisely when claiming succeeds, when it is refused (another device holds the lease), and the narrow condition that unlocks the alternative (device offline >15 min plus person agreement via `takeover: true`). It also routes the agent onward on a warning: "tell your person and pause_task soon," naming the sibling to invoke.

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