Claim Goal

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 well: it discloses the side effect of releasing prior claims, the failure mode with a competing session, and the reopen semantics for done Goals. It leaves out what happens to the paused Goal's tasks and any auth/takeover guardrails beyond the schema's note.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then side effects, then the reopen edge case. No filler and every clause carries 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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must stand alone, and it covers side effects, failure conditions, and the done-Goal interaction with add_tasks. Only the fate of the released Goal's tasks and explicit alternative routing are missing.

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 100%, so both params (goal, takeover) are already documented, and the description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

States a specific verb ("Claim") and resource ("a Goal") plus its exclusive-scope effect ("so only this Session works on it"), which sets it apart from release_goal/complete_goal operationally. However, it never names a sibling, so the agent must infer the contrast on its own.

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?

Gives concrete operating conditions: it releases any previously held Goal, fails if another running Session holds it, and reopens done Goals. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to alternatives (release_goal, complete_goal) or stating when not to use it.

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