claim_extend

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses atomicity and error conditions, which is helpful. However, it does not describe what happens on success, side effects, or how existing ownership is preserved beyond the brief 'without weakening existing ownership.' This is a mutation tool, so more behavioral detail would be expected.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence provides necessary information (purpose + error conditions). No filler words or redundant content.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with 10 parameters and no annotations. The description leaves key concepts undefined (same-domain, isolated claim, shared checkout) and fails to explain parameters like files/trees/resources. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but many operational details remain missing.

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 only 40% (4 of 10 parameters have descriptions). The description itself mentions 'project-files and all-files require scope_reason' and error conditions, but this largely repeats schema info and does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (files, trees, resources, compat_file_directories). It adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('atomically add same-domain scope') and the resource (a claim's scope). It also specifies a constraint ('without weakening existing ownership') that distinguishes it from claim_acquire or claim_release. This is a specific verb+resource with a clear scope.

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 implied usage: you use this tool to extend a claim's scope. It also mentions error conditions (e.g., isolated claim returns SHARED_CHECKOUT_REQUIRED) which serve as exclusions. However, it never explicitly names alternative tools or contrasts when to use claim_extend vs. claim_acquire/release.

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