release

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It discloses the omitted-parameter behavior (releases everything you hold) and the consequence of not releasing (blocks other holders), but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, error behavior, or what a partial-path release does.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the imperative action and followed by the scoping detail. No filler; the only minor cost is the informal quote styling in the second sentence.

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 not be described. For a single-optional-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the core action, timing, and default behavior; remaining gaps (permissions, error cases) are modest.

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 coverage is 0% and the sole 'paths' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does explain the default case ('without paths releases everything'), but does not clarify the format or meaning of the path values themselves, leaving half the parameter's semantics implicit.

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 ('Vrať nájem' = return the lease) and clarifies the scope ('bez paths vrátí všechno tvoje'). An agent can identify this as the counterpart to the sibling 'claim', though the description never names that sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated from its alternatives.

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 says when to use it ('jakmile jsi hotový' = as soon as you are done) and adds a when-not-to motive ('holding the lease just in case blocks the other'), which effectively warns against hoarding. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or listing prerequisites.

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