env_down

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

Annotations only declare idempotent/non-destructive/non-read-only; the description adds the multi-session claim model, the fact that a non-final release returns stopped:false with held_by, that force overrides other sessions and reports overrode_claims, and that a timeout yields pending:true with ok status while the supervisor finishes. That is substantial behavior the structured fields cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one; the remaining sentences each carry a distinct rule (default vs force, project omission, wait/pending). Dense but free of filler or repetition.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description still names the return fields an agent must interpret (stopped, held_by, overrode_claims, pending) and covers every parameter's behavior and limits. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret it correctly 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 coverage is 0% with no titles beyond property names, yet the description explains all three: force (override semantics plus a usage warning), wait_s (default 15, cap 60, and what pending:true means past it), and project (omit to target everything leased to the cwd). Nothing is left to guesswork.

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 first sentence states a precise verb and resource: releasing this session's hold on a project's environment, with the key conditional (it stops when no other session holds it). That scope is distinct from env_up/env_sweep without needing to open either schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance for each mode: default releases only your claim, force=true 'only when the user asked to stop the server outright', omit project to act on everything leased to this cwd. It also names env_ls as the way to see the eventual outcome, so the follow-up path is clear.

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