claim_specific_task

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the failure mode ('Fails with task_unavailable if another actor holds it with an unexpired claim') and a side effect ('Assigns the bound Project V2 card to the calling actor's GitHub user'). It omits claim TTL/expiry semantics and permission requirements, keeping it below 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then failure condition, then usage context and side effect. Front-loaded and free of 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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, failure mode, and side effect but leaves three parameters undocumented. It is adequate at the workflow level but incomplete for correct invocation with the optional arguments.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate — but it explains none of them. 'Claim by id' loosely maps to TaskId, while Role, as_agent, and TtlOverride are left entirely undefined in both schema and description (notably TtlOverride, which relates directly to the 'unexpired claim' behavior mentioned).

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 the modifier 'specific...by id' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling claim_next_task, which claims whatever task comes next. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Use when the orchestrator is directing work (e.g. dispatching a subagent to a particular task).' It implies the contrast with the next-task claimers but never states a when-not or names an alternative tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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