claim_console

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: claim lapses after idle_timeout_s without a tool call, and terminates when the session or app ends. It also discloses queueing semantics, wait_s cap of 600, and how to verify ownership via status().claim.held_by_you.

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-loads the core purpose and routing in the first sentence, then layers parameter and lifecycle detail. Dense and slightly run-on, but nearly every clause adds operational meaning rather than restating 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?

For a mutation-style locking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers contention, timeout, release triggers, verification, and human override — everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the schema has bare titles only, so the description must compensate — and it does for all three params: reason (shown to other agents and in the app window), wait_s (up to 600, waits for your turn in queue), and idle_timeout_s (range 10..3600, default 600).

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 (Reserve) and resource (the PS5), names the counterpart action (release_console), and explicitly carves out that snapshot/status are read paths that don't require a claim. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like snapshot, status, and release_console without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (to lock out other agents), the alternative read paths that need no claim (snapshot, status), and the contention case (joining the queue with wait_s, re-calling to hold your place). It even states the override rule that humans at the keyboard always win.

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