claim_resource

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior beyond the schema. It only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., blocking, failure on contention), requirements (e.g., binding_token, expected_generation), or the meaning of lease_seconds. The description does not explain the return value or error scenarios, making behavior opaque.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and key distinguishing features. It is appropriately compact. However, given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the brevity is borderline; still, the structure itself is well-formed.

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 six parameters and no output schema, yet the description omits the purpose of most parameters, the expected return (e.g., a lease token), and the relationship to sibling lease/renew/release tools. Although sibling tool names hint at a lifecycle, the description does not tie the pieces together, leaving the definition incomplete for an agent.

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 17% (one of six parameters has a description). The description only clarifies 'mode' (shared/exclusive) but does not explain lease_seconds, expected_generation, binding_token, or resource_key. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.

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 the specific verb 'Claim' with the resource type 'named resource lease' and the key dimension 'shared or exclusive'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like claim_task (tasks vs resources) and renew_resource/release_resource (lifecycle actions). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use claim_resource versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the initial acquisition step in a lease lifecycle, nor does it advise using renew_resource for extensions or release_resource for cleanup. The lack of when/when-not conditions leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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