work_claim

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: it performs a revision check, implying the operation validates expected_revision and likely fails if the revision doesn't match. 'Record a delegated contribution' also suggests it can create a work record on behalf of someone, adding nuance beyond 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?

One concise sentence that front-loads both core actions and the revision-check behavior. No filler, but the dual-purpose wording ('claim' or 'record delegated contribution') creates slight ambiguity that could have been unpacked in a second sentence.

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 tool has a nested request object with seven fields, no output schema, and no per-parameter documentation; the description gives only a high-level purpose. It is adequate for an agent to guess the main intent, but missing details about location, parent_work_id, replace_work_id, and what the response returns make it incomplete 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It only clarifies expected_revision ('revision check') and hints at the request object's purpose. The nested request object and fields like location, parent_work_id, replace_work_id remain unexplained, so the description does not fully compensate for the schema 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 says 'Claim task ownership or record a delegated contribution with a revision check' — it names a verb and resource, but it's ambiguous whether this is two separate operations (claim vs. delegate) in one tool. Among siblings like work_update and work_history, it does not clearly distinguish when one would claim versus update work.

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 phrase 'with a revision check' implies expected_revision is used for optimistic concurrency, signaling when to use it versus work_update. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like work_update or plan_ack, or what conditions make claiming appropriate.

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