claim_task

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the atomicity of the operation, the rejection of stale revisions as conflicts, and that work_scope is recorded on the task_started Event but not enforced. This is substantial, though it does not describe other side effects like status changes on the task. Overall, it gives the agent important behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The follow-up detail about work_scope is focused and includes a concrete example. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 output schema is present, so return values are covered, and the description explains the key behavioral aspects and the work_scope parameter. However, it does not clarify how expected_revision should be obtained or the meaning of role, which are important for a concurrency-sensitive claim operation. This leaves modest but notable gaps in the guidance needed for correct invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains work_scope. It provides an example and clarifies that work_scope is not enforced, which is helpful. However, the other five parameters (task_id, actor_id, role, expected_revision, plan_id) are unexplained, leaving the agent to rely on name inference. This is inadequate given the low coverage.

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 states exactly what the tool does: atomically claim one executable task. The verb 'claim' and resource 'task' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like add_task, edit_task, and recover_task. The stale-revision conflict behavior further distinguishes it from other task lifecycle operations.

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 intended use is clear from the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention exclusions such as whether a task must already exist or whether a different tool should be used for recovery. Usage is implied by the tool name and purpose rather than explicitly spelled out.

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