workflowmoves_outreach_claim

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that it returns a retained background job requiring polling of danceflow_job_status, that it is a base 'write' effect, and by pointing at danceflow_component for conditional inference/download effects. It also explicitly disclaims two things an agent might assume (approval granted, message sent). The one gap is that destructiveHint=true is never reconciled with the reassuring 'nothing is sent' framing.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the core action and disclaimers, with no filler. Slightly telegraphic in 'Base effect flags: write' and the closing sentence about conditional effects, but every sentence carries signal.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the async job pattern is correctly called out. But for a tool whose arguments object has seven opaque, required, undocumented fields, the description leaves an agent guessing about required inputs — a material completeness gap.

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 50%, and the only description provided is on the permissions object; the seven required arguments (root, account, venue, obligation, owner, approval, packet) carry no descriptions at all. The description hints at 'packet' and 'approval' but gives no meaning for root, account, venue, obligation, or owner, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an atomic claim for an approved packet') and immediately narrows scope with 'no approval is granted and nothing is sent'. This differentiates it from the outreach_list/inspect/finish siblings in the same family, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 precondition 'for an approved packet' implies this only runs after an approval exists, and 'poll danceflow_job_status' gives the required follow-up action. However it never states when to choose this over outreach_finish or outreach_inspect, so the selection logic is left to inference.

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