claim_app

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

Annotations indicate a mutation but not destructive. Description adds that the link expires in 30 minutes and requires user confirmation, plus the async flow. No contradictions; adds significant behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and flows logically. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the complexity and no output schema, the description adequately explains the workflow and what to do with the result. It could briefly mention the return structure, but the reference to get_claim_status compensates.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter details beyond what the schema provides, and it does not need to since schema is comprehensive.

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 it creates a real LexVibe app, replaces a placeholder, and returns a claim link. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_project and get_claim_status by specifying the purpose and workflow.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when no real LEXVIBE_APP_ID is configured and directs to call get_claim_status after confirmation. It lacks explicit when-not alternatives but provides clear context for usage.

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