sage_message_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: idempotent retry within a session, competing-session failure requiring a revision-fenced handoff, successful claim creating a reply obligation, and label-vs-authorization semantics. It does not describe the claim's return value or error behavior on a nonexistent/invalid message_id, which would complete the picture.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and the dense edge-case sentences (idempotency, competing sessions, legacy rows) all appear to earn their place. Readability suffers from packing many distinct rules into a single paragraph, but there is little pure filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers concurrency, idempotency, authorization semantics, and reply obligations. It is missing only the success/failure response shape and behavior on an unrecognized message_id.

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% for the single message_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It constrains the parameter meaningfully (one exact message_id, sourced from sage_inbox inspection, exactly one per call), but adds no format, casing, or validity details beyond that.

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 ('accept and atomically claim one exact message_id'), and scopes it to exactly one message. The description explicitly distinguishes this active claim from the passive sage_inbox inspection and from the sibling sage_message_send, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (after passive sage_inbox inspection and current user/task authorization) and a routing warning that a failed reply is not authorization for a substitute sage_message_send. It never frames an explicit when-not-to-use clause for the other message siblings, but the context is strong.

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