start_work

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world write. Beyond that, the description discloses the side effect of triggering a board sync that moves the card and the failure mode 'stale_claim' for an invalidated token, which are meaningful additions. It stops short of saying what the tool returns or what happens if the board sync itself fails.

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 with no filler: the action first, then the side effect, then the precondition and error. Every sentence carries distinct information an agent needs before calling.

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 two-parameter idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the transition, the sync side effect, and the token failure mode. The remaining gap is the undocumented as_agent parameter and the absence of any statement about the response shape.

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 the description carries the burden of two parameters. It adds real meaning for ClaimToken (original claim token, stale token returns stale_claim) but says nothing at all about as_agent, leaving half the signature undocumented anywhere.

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?

The description names a specific state transition ('claimed' to 'in_progress') on a specific resource (a claimed task), which is far more precise than the sibling mark_task_status. It never names an alternative tool or explicitly contrasts itself with mark_task_status, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It states the precondition clearly (the task must already be claimed and you must hold the original claim token), which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. It gives no explicit exclusion or pointer to alternatives such as mark_task_status or release_claim when the precondition is not met.

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