release_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it declares the authorization rule ('only the holder can release') and discloses the return semantics ('returns whether a lock was actually removed'), which is important for a mutation tool. It stops short of saying what happens on failure or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 with zero waste, and the core action and its key constraint are front-loaded ahead of the return note.

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 small 2-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, authorization, and return value, and the schema documents both params fully. The only gap is failure behavior, which no output schema exists to compensate for.

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 100%, including a clear explanation that session_id should be omitted. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Release') and resource ('a path lock') with scope ('held by this session on the session bus'). It is clearly the inverse of a claim/acquire sibling, though it never names the complement explicitly.

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 only implied by the constraint 'Only the holder can release.' There is no explicit 'call this after claim_path' or 'do not call if no lock is held,' so the agent must infer the trigger condition from context.

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