work_claim

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds the 'revision check' behavior, which is critical for optimistic concurrency and is not present in the annotation fields. It does not describe what happens on a revision mismatch, but idempotency and non-destructiveness are already covered by the annotations.

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 a single sentence, verb-first, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the alternative mode, and the concurrency check.

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 schema and annotations carry substantial weight: required fields, patterns, and idempotency are already structured. However, the description still omits success/error behavior, what a failed revision check means, and the semantics of parent_work_id/replace_work_id. It is adequate for a basic call but not fully complete for a nested WorkClaim operation with no output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate by explaining parameters, but it only adds meaning to expected_revision via 'revision check'. Required fields like project_id, request_id, session_id, task_id, and optional fields like location, parent_work_id, and replace_work_id are left entirely to their names.

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 concrete actions ('Claim task ownership or record a delegated contribution') and a key constraint ('with a revision check'), making it clear this is a write/claim operation rather than a read/history tool. It does not fully explain the two modes or the exact resource lifecycle, but the core purpose is identifiable.

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 phrasing implies when to use the tool (when claiming ownership or recording a delegated contribution), but it never explicitly contrasts it with siblings like work_update, plan_ack, or work_history. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are given, so the agent must infer selection from the verb 'claim'.

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