cpu_claim_craft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core side effect (banking matured batches), the no-op/error conditions, and the slot-freeing consequence. It does not mention the return value or response shape, which keeps it from 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?

The description is four concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, prerequisite, edge-case behavior, and slot-freeing consequence. The main action is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers purpose, prerequisites, edge cases, and the recommended preceding status check. The only notable gap is the absence of any statement about what the response contains or looks like.

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 100% and already explains tokenId as 'the tokenId of the cell whose craft processes to act on.' The description adds ownership context ('a cell you own') but does not materially expand parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening sentence names a precise verb ('Bank') and resource ('matured craft batch on a cell you own into its resource balance'), and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like cpu_craft and cpu_get_craft_status. The action is unambiguous and specific.

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 explicitly requires a session and tells the agent to call cpu_authenticate first. It also states when the call is a no-op success versus an error, and tells the agent to check cpu_get_craft_status first for claimable batches. This is concrete, actionable usage guidance.

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