claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does deliver real value: atomicity is stated, and the blocked-path response is described in detail (holders, intent, lease remaining, and the four advice values). However it omits whether a successful claim creates a persistent lease, how expiry works, and whether `wait` blocks the caller, which are the behaviors an agent most needs to reason about failure and retry.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the failure-mode detail relegated to second position, which is the right ordering. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler or restatement of the name.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It explains scope syntax and blocked responses but leaves the mode, wait, TTL, and task-linking parameters undefined, so an agent cannot confidently construct a call beyond the two required fields.

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% across seven parameters, so the description must compensate and mostly does not. Only `scopes` receives any semantic treatment (the dir/file/glob forms); `mode`, `wait`, `reason`, `task_id`, `ttl_minutes`, and `plan_summary` are entirely unexplained, and `mode` and `wait` materially change the tool's behavior.

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 (claim) and resource (path scopes) and enumerates the accepted scope forms: directory with trailing slash preferred, file, or basename glob. That is concrete enough for an agent to know what the tool operates on. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling `check`, which is the obvious adjacent operation.

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?

"before editing them" gives a clear and actionable trigger condition for invoking the tool, which is more than most definitions offer. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it never tells the agent when to use `check`, `release`, or `extend` instead, leaving sibling routing to inference.

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