Claim Agent Task

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real behavior: lease expiry semantics, a 409 on conflicting live claim, and the need to persist execution_epoch and lease_expires_at. It doesn't cover retry/idempotency or lease duration, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then structured USE WHEN / NOT FOR blocks and a return-payload note. Slightly dense in the final sentence, but each line carries actionable 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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (input_snapshot, instructions, output_contract) and how to use their Spec rules and enumValues. An agent has everything needed to call and use the result.

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% for the single task_id parameter, so the schema already carries its meaning. The description only indirectly clarifies it by referencing 'Agent-stage task'; baseline 3 applies.

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/reclaim) plus the exact resource and stage (Agent-stage task), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling that only inspects work (talonic_get_agent_task). An agent can select this without opening another schema.

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?

Has explicit USE WHEN (ready to process a task) and NOT FOR clauses naming two concrete alternatives (talonic_get_agent_task for inspection, talonic_heartbeat_agent_task for lease extension), plus the reclaim-after-expiry condition. Nothing is left to inference.

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