Claim a work card

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly and non-idempotent, so the description needn't repeat that. It adds valuable context: the claim mutates state (moves to 'doing'), enforces exclusivity (refused unless forced), and involves concurrency protection. It doesn't describe the return format or outcome details, but with annotations covering the basic safety profile plus output schema present, this is solid.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler. Front-loads the core action and purpose, then adds the critical exclusivity caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complex concurrency-sensitive tool with 6 parameters, dedicated annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It captures the essential mutating behavior, exclusivity rules, filesystem scope purpose, force/override semantics, and timing guidance. The output schema and rich parameter descriptions handle the rest.

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 coverage is 100% and parameters are richly described in the schema itself. However the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it frames scope as the mechanism 'stopping two agents editing the same files' and clarifies that claim refusal semantics are the core behavior. The description and schema together fully explain the 6 parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the verb, resource, and concurrent effects: 'Claim a card for an actor, move it to doing and optionally declare the filesystem scope that will be changed.' This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like project_card_release, project_card_transition, and project_card_patch by naming the claim + move-to-doing + scope behavior.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('Claim before editing anything the card covers') and the exclusivity semantics ('another actor's claim is refused unless forced'), giving clear when/when-not guidance versus the sibling release and patch tools.

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