team_time_claim_task

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: optimistic concurrency ('a competing claim loses the version race'), refusal conditions, and the fact that this only records ownership without mutating status. That explains the destructiveHint/idempotentHint profile in practical terms. It doesn't cover authorization requirements or what the caller receives on a lost race, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: scope, identity requirement, contention behavior, refusal rules, and sequencing advice. No restatement of the name and no filler.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the critical behavior (race semantics, refusals, ownership-only effect). The main omission is what a successful claim returns or how to recover from a version loss, which the agent would need before retrying.

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 must carry the load and it mostly does: expectedVersion is glossed as 'its observed version', agentId as the 'unique chat/run' identity, and taskId as the target task. It does not explain accepted formats or where the observed version is obtained (presumably team_time_get_task), leaving a small 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 and resource with explicit scope: 'Claim one existing not-started task using its observed version.' The not-started constraint and version-based ownership semantics separate it cleanly from release_claim and update/set_status 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 clear usage context ('agentId must identify this unique chat/run') and an implicit exclusion set ('Refuses existing claims and in-progress/completed work'), plus a sequencing rule ('change status separately before editing code'). It stops short of naming team_time_release_claim or the exact situation where the agent should not claim at all, so not a full 5.

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