force_release_file_reservation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value: it discloses the abandonment-heuristic validation and that an optional notification is sent to the previous holder. It omits auth/permission requirements (implied by registration_token), whether the release is reversible, and any failure behavior when the heuristics do not validate.

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 tight sentences that front-load the action before describing validation and notification behavior. Every clause is relevant, with only mild redundancy between 'inactivity heuristics' and the enumerated activity checks.

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 explained, and the description covers the core mutation and its trigger well. But for a destructive action on another agent's resource, the absence of auth/permission and irreversibility details leaves it short of complete.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It loosely touches notify_previous ('optional notification') but says nothing about note, format, registration_token, file_reservation_id, or project_key, leaving the majority of parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('Force-release a stale file reservation') and crucially scopes it to a reservation 'held by another agent' with abandonment heuristics, which separates it from the plain release siblings. It never names release_file_reservations explicitly, so sibling differentiation is by implication rather than direct contrast.

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?

Usage is implied through the validation conditions ('agent inactive beyond threshold and no recent mail/filesystem/git activity'), telling the agent this is for abandoned reservations. However, it never says when to prefer this over release_file_reservations or renew_file_reservations, nor any exclusion such as 'do not use on your own reservations'.

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