dibs_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the possible outcomes (GRANTED with expiry, DENIED with holder details) and the renewal behavior, which is significant and helpful. It does not mention any caveats like permissions or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second covers return values, and the third explains renewal. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most important information.

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 description is complete for a lease tool: it covers the purpose, the return values (compensating for the lack of an output schema), and the key behavior of renewal. All parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description integrates well with sibling tools without needing to reference them for this tool's usage.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% documentation for all parameters (ttl, reason, patterns), including types and examples. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states; it only reiterates glob patterns and renewal behavior. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Claim files or glob patterns before editing them, so parallel agents don't collide.' This uses a specific verb (claim), a resource (files/glob patterns), and explains the intended use, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like dibs_release and dibs_status.

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 specifies when to use the tool: 'before editing them' and for avoiding collisions among parallel agents. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of the 'when-not-to-use' criterion. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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