Release job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: that ownership is verified and that confirm=true is mandatory, which the schema's default-false boolean does not convey.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the ownership/scope constraint leads and the confirmation requirement follows immediately.

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 4-parameter, zero-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors (ownership, confirmation, conditional jobId). It stops short of describing the return value or what state change 'release' produces, but no output schema exists to carry that.

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 50% (jobId and confirm are undocumented). The description compensates by clarifying that confirm must be true and that jobId is optional only when a project scope is supplied, filling the two gaps left by the schema.

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 states a specific verb (release) and resource (held job) plus the ownership constraint, which implies the inverse of ris_hold_job. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling it complements.

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 gives an actionable condition (requires confirm=true; jobId optional only with a project scope), which is useful context. However it never states when to reach for this tool versus ris_cancel_job or other job-state tools, leaving alternatives to inference.

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