task_unclaim

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint: false, openWorldHint: false), the description adds that the task returns to 'open' state, that only the claiming agent can unclaim, and that a reason can be recorded for the next agent. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured: purpose, usage scenario, constraints, then parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Approximately 50 words for the main description, clear and front-loaded.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 params, 1 required, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: action, when to use, constraints, and parameter details. Complete for an AI agent to select and invoke.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value for the 'body' parameter by emphasizing its importance for context sharing, going beyond the schema description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Release your claim on a task — returns it to open so others can pick it up.' It specifies the verb (release/unclaim) and resource (task), distinguishing it from siblings like task_claim, task_complete, etc.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use when you're stepping away mid-flight and the task isn't done or failed.' It also notes that only the claiming agent can unclaim. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for similar scenarios, slightly lowering the score.

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