herdr_owned_pane_adopt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cleanup-only scope, the absence of ownership/authority transfer, and the checks performed. However, it doesn't describe side effects on the existing agent, reversibility, or required permissions, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 dense sentence that leads with the purpose and includes a key limitation. It is efficient with no filler, though it could be structured to highlight critical prerequisites more prominently.

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 tool has 14 parameters (13 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain how the parameters interact, what success looks like, or what preconditions must be verified. The concise description covers the high-level intent but not the execution context.

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 7% (only 'target' has a description), and the tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance. It references categories like identity, authority, state cursor, and protected-pane checks but does not explain any of the 14 parameters or how to construct them correctly. The agent is left to guess from names and patterns alone.

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 a specific action (create a cleanup-only lease) on a specific resource (an existing idle/done named agent), and adds the restriction that adoption grants no Git ownership or implementation authority. This is clear and not a tautology, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like herdr_owned_pane_close, herdr_controller_takeover, or herdr_owned_worker_start. It mentions preconditions (exact identity, authority checks) but not when a caller should choose 'adopt' over other operations.

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