bridge_claim

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

Adds a strong behavioral contract beyond the annotations: atomicity semantics, lease expiration, and requeue behavior, plus the long-poll hint. Consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint:false, idempotentHint:false, destructiveHint:false) — no contradiction.

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 lean sentences with the core contract front-loaded ('Atomically claim the next task'), then the lease lifecycle and the key parameter hint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Covers the full concurrency and discharge lifecycle, and the presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values. The remaining gap is empty-queue behavior (e.g., whether wait_seconds=0 means immediate failure or return-empty) — a detail that would only surface at the boundary, not in a typical invocation.

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?

Compensates for 0% schema coverage on two of four parameters: lease_seconds defines the lifecycle window and wait_seconds is explicitly tied to long-polling. But channel and consumer are wholly undocumented — especially the required 'consumer', whose meaning is not inferable from the description and doesn't get the accidental context.

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?

Says exactly what it does with a specific verb+resource: 'Atomically claim the next task from a channel's queue.' The uniqueness guarantee ('no two workers ever get the same task') plainly differentiates it from siblings like bridge_receive, bridge_ack, and bridge_tasks, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives actionable context: complete or fail within the lease window or the task gets requeued, and sets wait_seconds to long-poll. It does not explicitly name when NOT to use this tool over bride_receive or bridge_ack, but the lease/atomicity framing makes the intended worker-pool scenario clear.

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