claim_specific_task

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the failure mode 'task_unavailable' when another actor holds an unexpired claim, and the side effect of assigning the Project V2 card to the caller's GitHub user. It does not explain TTL expiry semantics or what Role/as_agent change behaviorally, leaving some gaps for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 compact sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by failure mode and side effect. No filler, though the side-effect sentence could be tightened.

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?

Covers the error condition and mutation side effect for a non-idempotent write with no output schema, which is the minimum an agent needs. However, with three of four parameters undocumented, an agent lacks enough to invoke meaningfully in non-default cases.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only clarifies TaskId ('by id'). Role, as_agent, and TtlOverride are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving an agent guessing at three of four parameters.

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 specific task by id') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling claim_next_task by being targeted at a caller-chosen id. Also names the side effect of assigning the bound Project V2 card.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the orchestrator is directing work (e.g. dispatching a subagent to a particular task)', giving a concrete selection condition. It stops short of naming claim_next_task as the alternative for the pull-based case, but the context makes the split inferable.

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