task_claim

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and write operation. The description adds that a note is recorded on the comment log, but does not clarify failure modes (e.g., if task already claimed) or side effects beyond status change.

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 concise paragraphs: core action, usage rationale, parameter details. No superfluous text, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and parameters. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity and existing output schema, it is mostly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: task_id's source (task_list/task_create) and body's purpose (optional note on comment log). This adds essential meaning.

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 states 'Claim an open task — marks it as yours and sets status to "claimed".' This is a specific verb+resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like task_unclaim and task_complete.

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 advises to always claim before working and lists follow-up actions (task_complete, task_fail, task_unclaim). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or handle already-claimed tasks.

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