claim_done

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical post-condition—the slice remains open/unverified until gates are verified—which is helpful. But it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as permissions, reversibility, or side effects on related entities, making it only partially 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 exceptionally concise—two short sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the purpose and adds only the key behavioral detail, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the essential context (what it does and a key post-condition). However, it does not elaborate on when to use it versus other state-changing tools (e.g., start_slice, accept_slice) beyond the verification note, leaving some ambiguity about the full state machine.

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 compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not. The parameter names (slice_id, actor_id, summary) are self-explanatory, yet the description adds no detail about their roles or constraints, leaving the agent to rely solely on the 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 states an explicit action ('Record DONE_CLAIMED') and a specific resource/status, making the tool's function unambiguous. It also differentiates from verification by noting the slice remains open/unverified, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_slice.

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 implies when to use this tool by contrasting it with the later verification step ('until its gates are verified'), giving clear context that this is a claim action, not a finalization. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like 'accept_slice' or 'verify_slice', leaving some inference to the agent.

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