paperclip_checkout_issue

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: sets executionRunId, details error handling for 401, 404, 409, 422, including specific retry advice for 409. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with distinct sections for action, arguments, returns, examples, and error handling. It is concise yet comprehensive, with no unnecessary verbiage.

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?

Despite lack of output schema, the description explains the return value (updated issue object with executionRunId). Error handling covers all relevant HTTP statuses with actionable advice. The tool's complexity is fully addressed.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds examples for issueId ('PAP-42') and expectedStatuses (['todo']), and clarifies that checkout fails if current status not in list, which adds value beyond schema.

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 clearly states the tool claims an issue for work by checking it out to the current agent. The title from annotations ('Check out issue for work') reinforces this. It distinguishes from sibling tools like paperclip_get_issue (read-only) and paperclip_release_issue.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided with 'Use when: claiming an assigned issue before starting work' and 'Don't use when: you only need to read the issue — use paperclip_get_issue instead'. It also advises using expectedStatuses to guard kanban column.

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