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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, closed-world operation, and the description does not contradict that. Beyond the annotations it usefully discloses that lock state is not machine-readable from this tool and prescribes a staleness-check workflow, which is real behavioral context. It stops short of describing what happens on release (e.g. effect on other sessions, failure modes), keeping it at a 4.

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 RECOVERY-ONLY framing is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the exclusion and the diagnostic steps. Every sentence carries distinct information (scope, prohibition, detection method, user-confirmation caution) with no filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, gating condition, detection workflow, and the human-confirmation requirement. For a single-parameter recovery tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents project_id fully. The description adds no format, constraint, or sourcing detail beyond it; per the rubric this is the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('releases a project's editing lock') plus the exact scope condition ('stale or abandoned session blocks new modifications'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the normal editing path, so an agent can separate it from siblings like dreamagent_edit_file or dreamagent_chat.

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 ('RECOVERY-ONLY'), when-not-to-use ('NOT a normal editing step, and NEVER a way to bypass an actively running edit'), and a concrete diagnostic procedure using dreamagent_get_edit_progress and dreamagent_chat to determine staleness. It even adds a procedural caution ('Confirm with the user before releasing'), leaving nothing to inference.

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