file_lock_release

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes the core behavior (releases lock) and effect on other agents. Does not disclose error states, idempotency, or behavior if lock not held or agent_name mismatch. Adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action, no fluff. Every sentence adds necessary information about purpose, timing, and benefit. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: what, when, why. Does not mention error handling or prerequisites beyond implying a prior acquire. Minor gap but not critical.

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 100% description coverage, but the description adds value by noting that file_path must be 'same value used in acquire' and agent_name 'must match the lock owner', which is not in schema descriptions. This clarifies parameter constraints beyond the structured fields.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Release the file lock') and specifies the resource and context (after editing, following file_lock_acquire). It distinguishes from sibling lock tools (acquire, check, list) by being the release counterpart.

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 call ('immediately after you finish editing a file you locked with file_lock_acquire') and provides rationale ('allows other agents to proceed'). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context of lock/unlock is clear.

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