hub_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the soft-lock is not enforced, but lacks details on conflict handling, idempotency, or effect of repeated claims. Some transparency but incomplete.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates core functionality.

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 simple claim tool, the description covers essential purpose but omits details like return value, duration semantics (despite ttlMin having a default), and whether lock is replaceable. Adequate but not thorough.

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 20% (only ttlMin has description). The description mentions 'area' in example but does not explain note, agent, project, or ttlMin's behavior beyond default. Insufficient compensation for low coverage.

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 verb 'soft-lock' and the resource 'work area' with a concrete example. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are all non-locking operations like hub_get, hub_search, etc.

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?

The description explains the tool is informational and not enforced, giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though uniqueness among siblings makes that less critical.

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