cpu_claim_craft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes side effects: banking into resource balance, freeing a slot when fully claimed, no-op success when nothing is matured, and errors when no craft processes exist. This is exceptional transparency for a state-changing tool.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: action, prerequisite, edge cases, and complementary tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a claim operation with error cases, side effects, and prerequisites) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers all essential context. It tells the agent about authentication, when the operation succeeds or fails, and what to check before calling, making it fully self-contained.

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 schema description for tokenId already states 'The tokenId of the cell whose craft processes to act on.' The description adds the ownership constraint ('a cell you own') and clarifies the action's context, which goes slightly beyond the schema. However, the schema coverage is high, so the additional value is modest.

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 and resource: 'Bank every matured craft batch on a cell you own into its resource balance.' This clearly states the action and its subject, distinguishing it from related tools like cpu_craft (creating batches) and cpu_get_craft_status (viewing status). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 provides explicit usage context: it requires prior authentication ('Requires a session — call cpu_authenticate first'), recommends checking claimable items first ('Check what is claimable first with cpu_get_craft_status'), and documents edge cases for when it is a no-op or an error. This tells the agent exactly when and how 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.