Start claimed work

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

Annotations provide no positive hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the state machine transition, failure conditions ('fails in any other state, or if you do not own the intent'), scope ('does not create or renew claims'), and return value format. It does not mention reversibility or other side effects, but the state change itself is clearly described.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then usage timing, then state behavior, then exclusions, then return value. Every sentence earns its place and the most critical information (what and when) is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description explains the return value ('Returns the updated intent with open_conflicts, the count and ids of its OPEN or COORDINATING conflicts') and provides a follow-up action. It covers state machine, failure conditions, and excluded behavior, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that intent_id must be in CLAIMED state (though the schema already says 'Your CLAIMED intent') and by clarifying the ownership consequence ('fails... if you do not own the intent'). It also states 'does not create or renew claims,' which clarifies what the parameters do not imply.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Mark your claimed intent as being implemented.' It immediately distinguishes itself from claim_work by stating it 'moves the intent from CLAIMED to IN_PROGRESS' and explicitly noting it does not create or renew claims, so an agent can tell it apart from its 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?

Explicit guidance: 'Call it after claim_work, immediately before you begin editing code.' It names the alternative for claim creation/renewal ('use claim_work for that') and recommends a follow-up action ('check their severity with check_conflicts'). This fully covers when and when not to use the tool.

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