Release local context

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it lists what is destroyed (context/grants) and that work is cancelled, and it explains the mechanism behind idempotency (bounded tombstones) that annotations only flag as true.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the destructive effects before the idempotency note. 'Bounded tombstones' is slightly jargon-heavy, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers what is destroyed and the intended repeat-release behavior, leaving only the sibling-routing question open.

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%, with both context_id and owner_token documented as required. The description adds no syntax, format, or relationship detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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+resource (invalidate/release a local context) and names the concrete effects: grants invalidated and work cancelled. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the adjacent sibling local_context_revoke, leaving the agent to guess which one to pick.

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: 'bounded tombstones permit repeated release' hints that this can be safely re-invoked and is the terminal lifecycle step for a context. There is no explicit when-to-use versus local_context_revoke or when-not-to-use guidance for a tool whose sibling set is crowded with lifecycle operations.

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