Release task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the state transition ('to ready') and the need for a reason, but omits critical behavioral details like the invalidation of lease tokens, versioning implications, or idempotency guarantees. It adds some value but is not rich enough for a higher score.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the complexity (6 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, 0% schema descriptions), this description is far too sparse. It omits concurrency control details, parameter semantics, and post-condition behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to use safely.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'reason' parameter ('Include a concrete reason'), leaving taskId, workerId, leaseToken, expectedVersion, and idempotencyKey entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly use the tool without additional assumptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Return a leased/running/blocked task to ready') and the specific condition ('when the current worker cannot continue'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_fail or task_cancel, which have different state transitions.

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?

Provides a concrete trigger condition ('when the current worker cannot continue'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear, but lacks the 'when-not' guidance that would earn a 5.

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