post_people_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. It only says 'Claim a lead' with no mention of side effects, ownership transfer, permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the lead is already claimed. The endpoint path adds minimal context but no behavioral detail.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the core action. It earns its place, though it could add a sentence about prerequisites or effects without becoming bloated.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what 'claim' means operationally, whether it requires an unclaimed lead, or what the response contains. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is clear about personId and the extraBody/extraQuery passthrough behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Claim a lead' uses a specific verb and resource, and the endpoint path clarifies the action. It distinguishes from siblings like post_people_ignore_unclaimed and get_people_unclaimed, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 claiming unclaimed leads, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_people_unclaimed or post_people_ignore_unclaimed. The context is inferable from the name and siblings, but no explicit guidance is given.

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