Reserve project files before editing to prevent simultaneous changes. If any requested file is already reserved, none are reserved, avoiding conflicts.
修改文件前先认领，防止和对方同时改同一个文件。有冲突时一个都不认领。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | 认领原因，例如 '重构布线模块' | |
| files | Yes | 文件路径，相对项目根目录或绝对路径均可 | |
| project | Yes | 当前项目根目录的绝对路径，例如 D:/code/ender-eda | |
| ttl_minutes | No | 认领时长（分钟），到期自动释放，默认 60 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the all-or-nothing conflict semantic ('有冲突时一个都不认领'), which is not visible in the schema, but omits auth requirements, success/return behavior, and TTL override effects on the release path.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary purpose comes first and the conflict rule second. Efficient and readable, though extremely terse.
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?
A mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers purpose and conflict behavior but leaves return/success semantics and permission context to inference, which is a gap when structured fields do not compensate.
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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., why a note or TTL matters, absolute vs relative path nuances), so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource (claim files) plus the purpose (prevent simultaneous edits before modifying). Clear but does not explicitly name or differentiate from the sibling release_files at the name level.
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 a clear condition for use: '修改文件前先认领' (claim before modifying files). However, it lists no exclusions and does not route to the alternative sibling release_files, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.