td_claim_scope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: path-scope semantics with examples, automatic TTL expiry, crash-safety implications, the fact that it is an agreement rather than a lock, and the requirement that write calls carry the same owner. This is unusually transparent and actionable.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into coherent paragraphs covering usage, path semantics, expiry, and enforcement. Every sentence adds useful information for correct invocation; there is no filler or repetition.

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 coordination tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions in the schema, this description covers why to use it, how claims work, how to refresh them, what happens on expiry, and how ownership is enforced on writes. The output schema exists, so not restating return values is acceptable. Nothing necessary for correct use is missing.

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 explain the parameters. It does: 'path' is clarified with subtree boundary examples, 'owner' is explained as any identifying string shown in refusal messages, and 'ttl_seconds' is tied to expiry and renewal. This fully compensates for the bare input schema.

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 opening line states a specific action and resource: 'Announce one subtree of the network as yours while you work in it.' This clearly communicates it is a claiming/ownership tool for a scope subtree, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like td_release_scope or td_scopes.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Reach for this before a run of edits whenever another agent or session may be touching the same project.' It also explains the failure mode it prevents and how to renew a claim. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to release alternatives, but the usage context is strong.

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