codemerge_claim

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states only that a file is claimed as modified, without mentioning whether claims are exclusive, whether a prior claim is overwritten, whether the claim can be released, or what happens on conflict. This is thin for a state-changing tool.

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 two compact components: a one-sentence purpose statement and a bulleted argument list. It contains no filler, front-loads the core action, and presents parameter definitions in a scannable structure.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the basics are present: session_id and file_path are documented and required. But because this is a mutation with no annotations and no usage or conflict semantics, an agent may not know when claims are valid or how to recover from a failed claim. The description is minimally adequate but leaves operational gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does define both required parameters: file_path is clarified as 'relative to repo root' and session_id as 'The merge session ID.' While session_id adds little beyond its name, the file_path scoping is useful. The description covers the parameters sufficiently despite the empty schema descriptions.

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 opens with a clear verb and object: 'Claim a file as being modified by this session.' This identifies the action and resource unambiguously. However, it does not differentiate from closely named siblings like codemerge_claims or claims_claim, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as codemerge_status, codemerge_merge, or claims_claim. There is no mention of prerequisites, sequencing within the merge workflow, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage context.

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