Claim a planned task to mark it in progress and set its owner and start time; refused until all earlier tasks and dependencies are done or cancelled.
Claim a planned task (-> in_progress, sets owner and started). Refused unless every earlier task is done/cancelled (order and phase gate) and its dependencies are done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | No | ||
| id | Yes | ||
| force | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the real burden and does well: it discloses the state transition, the fields mutated (owner, started), and the gating preconditions that cause refusal. It does not explain what bypassing the gate does, which leaves the destructive/privileged path only partly 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?
Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and state transition, followed immediately by the failure conditions. 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?
For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what changes, what gates apply, and when the call fails. The unexplained 'force' escape hatch is the remaining gap an agent would need.
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% and none of the three parameters are explained. 'by' and 'force' are never mentioned; 'sets owner' only hints at 'by', and 'force' — presumably a gate bypass — is completely undocumented despite being the highest-risk parameter.
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 (claim), a specific resource (planned task), and the resulting state transition (-> in_progress, sets owner and started), which differentiates it from the generic task_update and the read-only task_next/task_list. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, so it lands just below a 5.
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?
Clearly states when the call is refused: every earlier task must be done/cancelled (order and phase gate) and dependencies must be done. That is strong 'when not to use' coverage, but it never contrasts the tool with task_update or task_next, so the alternative-selection guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.