agent_claim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full weight. It discloses conflict detection, the required parameters, and that the tool returns a claimId. It does not discuss side effects like claim duration or locking behavior, but core behaviors are well described.

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 concise with five short sentences. It is front-loaded with purpose, then conflict detection, then required params, return value, and enum list. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the two required params and the enum for claimType, but omits purpose for optional params and does not describe the response structure beyond claimId. Given the complexity, the description is incomplete for fully informed use.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description only adds marginal value. It explains 'targetId' as file path or task ID, 'intent' as natural language, and lists 'claimType' enum values. However, it ignores optional parameters like 'taskId', 'agentId', 'sessionId', and 'profile', which remain documented only in the schema.

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 purpose: 'Claim a file, function, task, or feature for exclusive editing.' It uses a specific verb ('Claim') and resource types, and distinguishes from siblings like 'agent_release' by explaining the conflict detection mechanism.

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 description provides usage context: it explains conflict detection and instructs to save the claimId for the matching 'agent_release' call. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond 'agent_release'. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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