agora_claim_mission_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses concurrency semantics (exclusive lease, fails on unexpired competing lease) and the readiness precondition, but omits lease duration, whether claiming is reversible, and what permissions or identity are required.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the failure conditions following immediately. Every clause 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 single-parameter mutation with a small failure surface and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies the key operational facts (readiness, lease exclusivity). Lease lifecycle details and prerequisites would be nice but are not essential to avoid misuse.

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% and the single parameter task_id has only a title, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It never mentions task_id or its format, though the field is self-evident from context; the omission is minor but means the description adds nothing beyond the 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 ('Claim') and resource ('MissionTask') with the added scope qualifier 'ready' and 'under a time-boxed lease'. An agent can immediately distinguish this from agora_get_mission_task, agora_list_mission_tasks, and agora_retract_claim.

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?

Specifies two explicit preconditions for success: the task must be ready, and no other agent may hold an unexpired lease. This tells the agent when the call is appropriate. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g. retract_claim for release) or explaining how to find a claimable task, so it is not a full when/when-not pair.

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