invariance_review_unclaim

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is partially covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies the state transition (claimed → pending), the fact that no decision is recorded, and the intended purpose (allowing another agent to pick it up). It does not mention side effects like whether notes are stored or whether any notification is sent, but the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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 sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states the action and outcome; the second sentence provides the critical exclusion and routes to the sibling. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the state transition, the purpose, and the alternative. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state what the response looks like or whether the operation can fail (e.g., if the review is not currently claimed), but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, this is a minor omission.

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 description coverage is 50%: the 'id' parameter has no description in the schema, while 'notes' has a description. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. However, the description's context ('previously-claimed review') implies that 'id' refers to the review ID, and 'notes' is optional. Since the schema covers half the parameters and the description adds minimal extra meaning, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Release'), a specific resource ('a previously-claimed review'), and the resulting state ('back to pending'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling invariance_review_resolve by noting it does not record a decision. This is a clear, specific purpose that an agent can act on without ambiguity.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when releasing a previously-claimed review so another agent can pick it up. It also provides an exclusion: 'Does not record a decision — use invariance_review_resolve for that.' This directly routes the agent to the correct alternative, which is exactly what usage guidelines should do.

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