ddflow_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses refusal behavior (exit 3 on conflicts), the condition for legitimate force, the recording of overrides, and the rationale behind not stealing expired leases. This goes beyond basic operation and covers important side effects and failure modes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical behavioral warnings. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff. The ALL-CAPS warning is effective for emphasis without being verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, conflict handling, force semantics) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: refusal conditions, force legitimacy, and the no-steal rule. It does not describe the full lease lifecycle (e.g., what happens on success), but that is likely covered by sibling tools. The schema fills parameter details, making this sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema covers all 5 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The main description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema's descriptions—especially for force—are thorough. The description does not need to repeat what the schema already explains.

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 states a specific verb ('lease') and resource ('an item') plus the concrete action ('create its isolated git worktree'). It is unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like release, recover, or merge, which have different purposes.

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?

It provides clear usage context: it refuses on conflicts, explains when the force override is legitimate (after ddflow_recover), and warns against stealing expired leases. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the force description references ddflow_recover, giving conditional guidance. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it.

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