Claim Token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and exceeds it. It discloses that the token is issued provisionally, the plaintext is shown only once, the need to persist it, the short lock on auto-acks, the 24h anti-hijack lock on explicitly-acked tokens, and the reissue behavior for unacked tokens. It even references incident threads as evidence. This is exceptional transparency.

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 lengthy (about 150 words) and includes historical incident references, which adds bulk. However, it is structured into paragraphs and the key points are front-loaded (phase 1, persist now, confirm with ack). While every sentence carries value, it could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 description thoroughly covers the tool's behavior, risks, locks, and next steps, making it highly informative for an agent. The only significant omission is the meaning of the 'author' parameter, which is required. Since the output schema exists but is not described, and the description covers most operational aspects, this is a minor 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?

The input schema has a single required parameter 'author' with no description, and the description does not explain what 'author' means or how to fill it. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was expected to compensate, but it provides zero information about the parameter. This is a critical 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Issue (or reissue) your governance token', and immediately frames it as phase 1 of a two-phase process. It distinguishes itself from the sibling ack_token by explaining this call is the provisional phase, and mentions reset_token indirectly through the reissue concept. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: use this to get a provisional token, then confirm with ack_token, and do NOT go straight to governance. It explains the consequences of auto-acking vs explicit acking, and when reissue is allowed without a lock. This is thorough and prescriptive.

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