hub_claim

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the most important behavioral trait — the lock is not enforced — plus the matchable:false consequence for prose areas. It omits TTL semantics (does it auto-expire at ttlMin?) and what happens on conflicting/duplicate claims.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior ('Soft-lock a work area'), then the critical not-enforced caveat, then the area format. Dense but every clause adds value; the parenthetical example list is slightly heavy but justified for a glob field.

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 5-param mutation-like coordination tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, key-param format, and cross-tool consumption well. Remaining gaps — TTL behavior, conflict handling, and the non-documented params — are the main shortfall.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It richly explains `area` (glob syntax, examples, joined with ' + ', bare directory allowed, prose accepted), which is the critical parameter. `agent`, `note`, and the default-240 `ttlMin` are not elaborated in the description, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Soft-lock a work area' with the purpose of visibility to other agents. It explicitly distinguishes the tool's effect from a hard lock ('Not enforced — informational') and names the related siblings (hub_claim_check / hub_context) that consume the claim.

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?

Clear context: it tells the agent the claim is informational and that hub_claim_check/hub_context will surface it. It implicitly frames when to use it (coordinating file ownership), but offers no explicit when-not or precedence rules among the ~38 sibling tools.

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