pi_release_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the mutating act (releasing the write lease), the precondition (busy agents are rejected), and the reversibility profile (name, description, results and session retained). It stops short of covering failure modes, permissions, or how the agent becomes active again.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the precondition, then the non-destructive guarantee. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important behavioral facts: what is released, what is preserved, and the idle precondition. Only minor gaps (no return/error behavior) remain.

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 0% and the description never mentions session_id, so it adds no meaning beyond the bare schema. The single parameter is largely self-evident, keeping this at a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('unload an idle agent runtime and release its write lease') and explicitly delineates what it does NOT do ('Does not delete the agent or its context'), which separates it from the pi_terminate_agent sibling. An agent can identify the operation without opening schemas.

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 states a clear precondition ('Rejects busy agents') and an implicit context (retaining state 'for later continuation', i.e., when you want to free a runtime without ending the agent). It does not explicitly name alternatives like pi_terminate_agent or pi_continue_agent, so it lacks the direct when/when-not routing of a 5.

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