complete_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect: every agent reading a changed declaration is notified of the final signature and whether it matches the declaration. But it says nothing about what releasing the claim actually mutates, whether it is reversible, auth/permission needs, or failure 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?

Two sentences, action front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence is somewhat tangled ('is told what it landed as'), but it earns its length by disclosing the cross-agent notification behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the core payload semantics are covered. For a state-mutating claim operation with zero annotations, though, the description should say more about the effect on claim state and how it differs from release_claim.

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, and it does for two params: it explains that symbols should carry the final sig/sigText (not just any value) and that commitSha is optional. claimId is left implicit, which is the only real gap.

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+resource (release a claim) and a precise trigger (after committing, optionally recording commitSha). It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling release_claim, which an agent would reasonably confuse it with from name alone.

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?

Gives a clear timing condition — use it after you have committed — and notes that recording the commit sha is optional. It stops short of the 5-level bar because it never states a when-not or points to release_claim as the alternative for the non-commit case.

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