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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two traits beyond the schema: releasing frees waiting agents, and supplying outcome done/failed records a persistent mark. However, it says nothing about the required token's authorization role, whether release is reversible or idempotent, or what an invalid/expired lease does.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and rationale; nothing is padded. The trailing clause 'also leaves a mark' is slightly cryptic about what the mark is, but overall it is tight and well-ordered.

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 five-parameter mutation-style coordination tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and one side effect but omits token/authorization expectations, failure modes, and confirmation of what the caller gets back. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented (note, lease, token, outcome, evidence). The description only adds context for 'outcome' by implying done/failed is a recorded state. That is baseline-level added value over a fully covered 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 a concrete action on a specific resource: returning a lease so it isn't held until expiry. It is distinguishable from siblings like claim and mark by naming the release-of-lease operation. It stops short of a crisp verb+resource label ('release lease') and never names an alternative tool, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

It gives an explicit condition for use: call it when you finish or give up on the work, so others don't wait. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It offers no when-not guidance and names no alternative sibling (e.g. what to do instead if you intend to keep working), so it is not a 5.

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