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

The description adds behavior beyond annotations by stating effects: 'updates local coordination claims under .axint/coordination; no network.' It also clarifies scope narrowing: 'agentId releases only its matching claims unless files narrow the release set.' No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false).

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 compact and well-organized, with clear labeled sections for usage ('Use:') and effects ('Effects:'). Every sentence provides value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage timing, effects, and parameter interaction. Output schema exists, so lack of return-value detail is acceptable. The tool is a straightforward release operation with 5 optional parameters, and the description is fully sufficient for an agent to decide and execute.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds relational meaning between agentId and files ('agentId releases only its matching claims unless files narrow the release set'), which helps select correct parameter combinations. It does not fully redefine each parameter but adds useful context.

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 clearly states the action: 'Release active local Axint file claims for this agent after finishing or abandoning a task.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like axint.agent.claim and axint.agent.advice by mentioning when to use each.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: 'use after finishing or abandoning claimed files; use agent.claim before edits and agent.advice for next steps.' This names the tool's intended timing and contrasts it with alternatives, which fully addresses when to use this tool vs. siblings.

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