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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals side effects (fires lock_available webhook), error conditions (404, 403), cost (free), and immediate nature of release. This covers key behavioral aspects an agent needs to know before calling.

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?

Four sentences, each delivering distinct value: purpose, cost, errors, side effects. Front-loaded with the primary action and usage timing. No filler or redundancy; information-dense yet readable.

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?

Complete for a lock-release tool: covers when to use, error handling, side effects, and cost. References related tools (webhook registration, acquire lock) to guide integration. No missing operational details that would prevent correct invocation.

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 all three parameters thoroughly (api_key explains credential types and auth, workspace_id references creation tools, name specifies must-match condition). The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

Clearly states the action: voluntarily release a lock immediately, contrasted with waiting for lease expiry. Differentiates from sibling tools like acquire and renew by emphasizing immediacy and free cost. The verb 'release' plus resource 'lock' is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to call ('as soon as you're done with the unit of work') and why (to avoid idle sub-agents). Contrasts with acquire/renew and mentions polling as an alternative to avoid, providing clear usage context. No ambiguity about the intended scenario.

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