claim_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits beyond structured data: the operation is atomic, it is a lease (time-bound), and it can be renewed. It omits critical behavior — what happens on a version mismatch, whether the claim blocks other agents, and what occurs when the lease expires.

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 tight sentences with the action and its constraint front-loaded and the precondition second. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

A mutation tool with five parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema needs far more: expected return value (lease granted? new version?), conflict/error behavior, and parameter meanings are all missing. The description leaves the agent guessing on anything past the happy path.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does convey the lease_seconds bounds (30–86400), which the schema itself does not constrain, and it implies expected_version semantics via "read its latest version first." It says nothing about agent_id, project_id, or the conflict meaning of expected_version.

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 compound verb ("claim or renew") with a clear resource ("task") and adds scope detail (30–86400 second lease). An agent can distinguish this from update_task or create_task. It loses a point only because it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

"Read its latest version first" is a real prerequisite hint implying an optimistic-concurrency read-then-claim flow. However, there is no guidance on when to claim versus renew versus update_task, and no exclusions or failure conditions spelled out.

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