dsh_release_workspace

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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-readonly and potentially destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it releases a claim while leaving the session open and not affecting other clients' editing. This goes beyond the annotations with meaningful side-effect disclosure.

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 crisp sentences deliver the core action and the key negative side effect without redundant framing. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter operation with this scope, the description fully covers the action, the affected resource, and the main misinterpretation risk. The absence of an output schema does not leave a serious gap because the tool's primary purpose and non-effects are clearly stated.

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 schema only defines taskId with a pattern and provides no description. The tool description references 'this bridge task's persistent workspace claim,' which suggests taskId identifies the relevant bridge task, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter semantics or where the value comes from in the schema. With schema coverage at 0%, the description could compensate more.

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 uses a specific verb ('release') with a specific resource ('persistent workspace claim') and immediately clarifies the boundary ('does not close the DSH session...'). This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from session-level or editing commands.

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 phrase 'explicitly release this bridge task's persistent workspace claim' makes the intended situation clear, and the statement about not closing the session or blocking other clients provides a useful when-not condition. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the exclusion is clear enough.

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