release_task

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds valuable specifics: it ensures no data deletion, states that the task and history stay on the board, and clarifies that other assignments are untouched. This gives the agent a concrete model of the tool's effects.

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 three sentences long, with the first sentence immediately conveying the primary purpose. Every sentence adds distinct information: the action, the scope limitation, and the non-destructive guarantee. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool with a well-covered schema and an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core behavior, safety guarantees, and lasting effects on the task and board. The optional move_back_to_todo behavior is documented in the schema, so its omission from the description does not create a gap.

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 all three parameters (task_id, reason, move_back_to_todo) having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning or clarify parameter relationships beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Give up your claim on a task') and the resource (task). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting that only your own claim is removed and other assignments remain untouched, differentiating it from tools like unassign_people.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when you cannot finish a task) and implicitly excludes using it for other people's assignments via 'Only your own claim is ever removed.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a 'when not to use' directive beyond the scope limitation.

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