verfi_claim_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the required scope, the exact success condition (success=true and data.status=claimed), idempotency/retry semantics, and the non-obvious caveat that wallet receipts can replay a historical success without re-evaluating gates. It does not say what happens to an existing owner on re-claim or what failure shapes look like beyond the 409 noted in the schema.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the scope requirement, then success criteria, then retry semantics. Every sentence carries operational weight; density is high but justified for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: required scope, success verification, idempotency, and replay risk. It does not describe the return payload shape in any depth, which is the main remaining omission given the absent output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description reinforces idempotencyKey reuse ('same idempotencyKey and body for identical retries') but adds almost nothing the schema's own parameter descriptions do not already state, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Claim a web session using buyer gates.' An agent can distinguish it from the sibling verfi_unclaim_session or verfi_get_claim_status by the verb alone, though the description never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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 precondition ('Requires sessions:claim') and a sequencing instruction ('Validate required PII separately before calling'), plus retry guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives such as verfi_get_claim_status for checking existing claims, so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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