claim_room

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral specifics: 'create-only: first claimant wins,' the ownership mechanism via 'storing this identity's did:key in room-owners,' and the post-claim rule that 'only signed writes from keys the owner lists are then accepted.' It also explains the signature coverage, adding real context for a mutating 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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Both sentences carry meaningful information with little waste. The phrase 'd- room' is slightly cryptic, but it does not undermine the overall clarity.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, failure-by-design semantics ('first claimant wins'), authentication modes, and downstream effects on signed writes. It does not explicitly describe the failure result when a room is already claimed, but 'create-only: first claimant wins' strongly implies it.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful parameter semantics by explaining that 'the signature covers the claimant's own did as the value' and that did/sig/nonce are only needed when signing externally. This clarifies the relationship between the optional parameters beyond their 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Claim ownership of a d- room by storing this identity's did:key in room-owners.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying 'create-only: first claimant wins,' which separates it from read/list/write tools and from set_room_allow.

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 implies when to use the tool: to claim an unclaimed room, since 'first claimant wins.' It also explains authentication options ('Uses the configured signing identity, or externally supplied did/sig/nonce'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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