dhp_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that claiming yields a lease (exclusive ownership) and the last checkpointed state, but says nothing about contention when a handoff is already claimed, lease expiry, or required permissions.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the return value follows immediately. Nothing could be trimmed without losing content.

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 the description is not obligated to detail return values (though it does, usefully). Against that, there are no annotations, no parameter documentation, and no failure or contention semantics for what is clearly a mutating lease-acquisition call.

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 both handoff_id and worker_id are undocumented in the schema, and the description does not compensate by explaining their formats, relationships, or constraints. The agent gets no help beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 (handoff) plus the actor (worker), which is enough to distinguish it from dhp_dispatch or dhp_recover in intent. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to claim versus dispatching, recovering, or checking status. The only implied guidance is that a claim precedes work, which the agent must infer from the sibling names and the resume-point mention.

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