claim_for_self

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: optionality, shared per-session 1000-coin budget with attribute_to_sources, and that it is an active stake rather than silent non-attribution. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., reversibility, visibility) or consequences of misclaiming.

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 brief and well-structured: starts with optionality, states verb and resource, differentiates from alternatives, notes budget constraint, and closes with guidance. No redundant phrases.

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?

Given a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, when to use, budget, and usage advice. It lacks explicit mention of return values or failure modes, but these are not critical for this coin-allocation action.

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 covers both parameters fully (coins and reason) with descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning; it merely restates the coin allocation budget and usage guidance.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Allocate AC coins to your own contribution' and adds purpose ('positive assertion that the reasoning... was your own thinking rather than borrowed'). It differentiates from related sibling attribute_to_sources by noting shared budget and active stake, making it distinct.

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?

Provides usage context: it is optional, 'Use sparingly and honestly,' and differentiates from silently not attributing. It mentions sharing the per-session budget with attribute_to_sources, implying trade-offs, but does not explicitly list when-not-to-use.

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