transportRelease

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

Even though annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, the description adds crucial behavioral detail: a released request cannot be reopened, the only way back is another request, failures happen under open tasks/syntax errors, and this step changes another system. This goes well beyond the annotation's simple destructiveness flag and gives the agent a clear risk model.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the action, the irreversibility, the failure preconditions, and the warning to ask first. The most important operational fact (not undoable) is front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 destructive action with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, its irreversible consequence, its failure conditions, and the human-oversight expectation. An agent has enough information to decide whether to invoke it and to explain the risk to a user. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond that, which is acceptable but not exceptional. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Release a request' that 'sends its objects on to the next system.' This clearly distinguishes transportRelease from sibling transport tools like createTransport, transportDelete, or transportInfo. The irreversible nature is immediately stated, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 gives strong context on when to use this tool by explaining preconditions: it fails while tasks are open or objects have syntax errors, and it should not be invoked casually ('Ask before releasing anything'). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when-not-to-use conditions beyond these, so it misses the top score.

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