Sdk Release Project Lease

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, non-openWorld. The description adds that it destroys an opaque session reference within the MCP process, clarifying the effect on the session beyond annotations. Lacks details on permissions or lease state side effects.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the release action, no wasted words. Appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety profile. However, the only parameter is undocumented and the description does not explain how to obtain or format sdk_session_ref. Partially complete.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single required param sdk_session_ref. The description mentions '不透明会话引用' which conceptually links to the param, but provides no format, source, or constraints. Inadequate given low schema coverage.

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 '释放' (release) plus resource 'SDK 工程租约' and adds a secondary action '销毁...不透明会话引用'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like acquire/renew by opposite action, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus arcgis_pro_sdk_acquire_project_lease or arcgis_pro_sdk_renew_project_lease; no preconditions or alternatives mentioned. Usage is only implied (when done with lease).

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