board_claim_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: atomicity guarantee, lease duration, renewal requirement, expiry/reclaim semantics, the file_conflict_warnings return signal, and an extensive security model distinguishing untrusted board DATA from human authority and grants. This is far beyond what structured fields 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?

The core lease behavior is front-loaded in the first sentences, and the security paragraph, while long, is non-redundant and operationally necessary. The description is dense but each sentence contributes; the security block could be tightened slightly.

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?

For a stateful lease tool with no output schema, it covers acquisition, renewal, expiry, conflict signaling, and the trust boundary. What is missing is error/failure behavior (e.g., what happens when a claim loses the race or a lease is still held by another session) and explicit parameter documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both task_id and session_id. It introduces the session/lease concept that gives session_id meaning, but never directly documents either parameter's format, default (session_id defaults to null), or required/optional status, so compensation is partial.

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 specific verb+resource+constraint: 'Claim a task lease before editing its files (atomic: only one session wins).' This is clearly distinct from the sibling set (release, update, post, register) and an agent can recognize it as the exclusive-ownership step before file edits.

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?

Explains when to call (before editing files), what a repeat call does (renews while authorization active), and the expiry/reclaim conditions (30-minute default, anyone may reclaim expired leases). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like board_release_task, so it stops short of full when-not/alternative routing.

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