claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers meaningful detail: claims expire if not renewed, so crashed sessions do not leave stuck claims, and other sessions can see the claim before eviction. It does not cover conflict behavior or what happens if the same model is claimed twice, but the key lifecycle 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 compact, front-loads the core declaration, and uses the second sentence to explain the crucial expiry behavior without wasted words. Every sentence adds value and the structure flows logically from action to rationale.

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 simple claim tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core call, the visibility rationale, and the expiration behavior. It could add what the call returns or how conflicts with existing claims are handled, but the essential information for invoking it correctly is present.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it largely does: `model` and `purpose` are directly named in the declaration, `owner` maps to 'who's using', and `ttl_seconds` is tied to expiration timing. It does not fully define owner uniqueness or TTL precision, but it adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Declare') and names both the resource (`model`) and the intent (`purpose`), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing claims as visible declarations used to coordinate eviction, which sets it apart from renew, release, and list_claims.

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 clear context: use this when actively using a model and wanting other sessions to know before eviction. It also implies the alternative tool (`renew`) by instructing to renew before ttl_seconds elapses, though it does not explicitly name when not to use it or mention `release` as an alternative.

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