pws_release_worker

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description goes beyond annotations by noting the default preview behavior and the verification step ('verifies that the contract became inactive'). However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., what happens to the contract on release) or the need for confirmation, but the destructiveness is already flagged in annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence broken into three concise clauses. It is front-loaded with the core action and adds two important behavioral notes. No unnecessary words, though the use of 'PREVIEW OR RELEASE' in caps is slightly stylistic but acceptable.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a confirmation message or updated contract status). For a destructive tool with a confirmation flag, the lack of explanation for 'confirmed' and the absence of return value information are significant gaps. The description covers the main action and default, but omits critical operational details.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage. The description only mentions that the tool 'defaults to preview,' which relates to the 'preview' parameter. It does not explain the 'confirmed' parameter, which is critical for a destructive operation. The 'contractId' is self-evident, but confirmed is completely 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'PREVIEW OR RELEASE an active player-company contract.' It uses specific verbs and a resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like pws_get_worker_contracts (view) or pws_set_contract_gimmick (modify). The additional context 'verifies that the contract became inactive' further clarifies the tool's role.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you want to release a player-company contract) but provides no explicit guidance or alternatives. It does not explain when to preview versus actually release, nor does it mention any prerequisites or situations where this tool should be avoided. There are no references to sibling tools for different use cases.

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