release

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral fact: omitting `paths` releases everything you hold, not just one lease. It also explains the consequence (blocking the other agent), which is meaningful concurrency context. It omits error behavior (releasing a lease you don't hold) and idempotency, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Front-loaded imperative followed by the scope rule and a short rationale; every sentence carries information. The closing warning is slightly editorial, but it justifies the guidance rather than padding it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the one optional parameter's default behavior is covered. What is missing for a lease-mutation tool is failure semantics (unknown/expired lease) and idempotency, leaving a small but real gap.

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 schema only declares `paths` as a string array or null with no meaning attached. The description compensates by explaining that the parameter acts as a filter and that its absence means 'everything you hold', which is exactly the semantic the schema lacks.

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 and resource ('Return leases') that is unambiguously the inverse of the sibling 'claim'. It also pins down scope ('Without `paths` returns everything you hold'), so an agent knows exactly what this does. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, so it is not a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('as soon as you are done') and an anti-pattern to avoid (holding a lease 'just in case'). That is real conditional guidance. It does not, however, mention adjacent siblings such as `cancel`, `retry`, or `ack` and when to prefer them.

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