Delimit Collision Check

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

The description itself clearly discloses that action='claim'/'release' mutate lock state and action='check' is read-only. However, the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true for the whole tool, directly contradicting the mutating actions. Per the rubric, this contradiction forces a score of 1.

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?

The description is well-structured with scannable labeled sections: purpose, when to use, when not to use, sibling contrast, and side effects. Every sentence carries distinct information, and there is 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?

The description is largely complete for a 4-parameter tool: it covers use cases, exclusions, sibling differentiation, side effects, and action-specific parameter requirements, and an output schema exists. The only deduction is due to the contradictory annotations, which force an agent to reconcile conflicting signals about whether the tool is read-only.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable operational meaning beyond the schema: claim before editing, release after committing, and file_path being required for claim/release. It also clarifies which actions are read-only versus mutating, helping the agent choose valid parameter combinations.

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-resource pair: 'Detect / prevent multi-model file edit collisions' and explains it tracks per-file edit ownership. It also contrasts with delimit_swarm, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 explicitly provides 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' guidance, naming the exact cross-model workflow and rejecting single-model or general filesystem locking. It also gives a sibling contrast, making the selection criteria unambiguous.

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