task_claim

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, and the description adds consistent context: the state mutation (status set to 'claimed', 'marks it as yours') and the side effect of writing a note to the task's comment log. No contradiction with annotations — claiming is a reversible, non-destructive mutation.

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?

Efficiently structured: deprecation warning front-loaded, then purpose, workflow guidance, and args. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but every sentence otherwise earns its place and the critical deprecation context leads.

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?

Complete for a claim tool: it covers purpose, workflow position, follow-up actions, and both parameters. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, though it stops short of describing edge cases like claiming an already-claimed task.

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% — both task_id and body are already documented in the input schema. The description's Args section largely repeats this, adding only marginal context (task_id comes from task_list() or task_create(), body is a why-note). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Claim an open task, marks it as yours and sets status to 'claimed''. This distinguishes it from siblings like task_create, task_complete, task_fail, and task_unclaim — each is a visibly different lifecycle action, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Always claim a task before working on it. This prevents two agents from doing the same work.' It also names the follow-up tools (task_complete, task_fail, task_unclaim) and the deprecation note ('not where new work should go') gives a when-not signal, though it doesn't point to a specific replacement tool.

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