memorybank_claim_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the state change (PENDING to IN_PROGRESS), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error conditions (e.g., task not found, already claimed), security/permissions, or side effects beyond the state change.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences that state the action and the state transition. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally hint at return values (e.g., success confirmation, updated task details). It does not. Additionally, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., task must exist, user authorization). However, for a simple claim action, the core function is adequately covered.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (both 'projectId' and 'taskId' are described with examples and context). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reclama'/'Claims'), identifies the resource ('una tarea pendiente'/'a pending task'), and clearly states the effect ('Cambia el estado de PENDING a IN_PROGRESS'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'memorybank_complete_task' (likely transitions to COMPLETED) and 'memorybank_delegate_task' (reassigns).

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 the tool is for pending tasks but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions (e.g., 'do not use if task is already IN_PROGRESS'). No 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' guidance is given.

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