Start claimed work

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent), and the description adds state-machine semantics, ownership requirements, failure modes, and a follow-up dependency (check_conflicts before proceeding). This is rich behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Every sentence carries unique information: purpose, timing, failure semantics, alternative tool, and return value. The state transition is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description documents the return value (updated intent with open_conflicts count and ids) and directs the agent to check_conflicts next. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the call correctly is 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 100%, so both parameters (agent_id, intent_id) are already documented with their ownership and CLAIMED-state requirements. The description restates the ownership constraint but adds no new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise state transition (CLAIMED to IN_PROGRESS) with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly names the sibling it is not (claim_work), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('after claim_work, immediately before you begin changing files'), explicit failure conditions ('fails in any other state, or if you do not own the intent'), and an explicit exclusion with an alternative ('does not create or renew claims; use claim_work for that').

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