claim_pin

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

No annotations provided so description carries full burden. It discloses the state transition and coordination purpose. Missing details on error cases (e.g., already claimed pin) but sufficient for typical use.

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, no filler. Front-loaded with purpose, then state info, then workflow instructions. 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 simple state-transition tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, workflow, and state change. Could mention handling of already claimed pins, but overall adequate.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. Description does not add extra meaning beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3.

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 tool claims an actionable pin, transitions state, and is part of a workflow. It distinguishes from siblings like 'fix_and_resolve' and 'approve_pin' by specifying the before-start context.

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 says when to call (before starting work, before changes) and provides next step (fix_and_resolve). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the workflow.

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