task_unclaim

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: the side effect of writing a body to the task's comment log and the state transition to 'open'. It also discloses the permission constraint. This enriches the safety profile beyond what annotations alone 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?

The description is tight and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage context, then args. No unnecessary words. The Args section is clearly separated, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, output schema present) and the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, precondition, and side effects. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing; the output schema handles return value details.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that task_id must be a claimed task and by strongly recommending the body for context handoff, which goes beyond simple type definitions.

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 states a specific action ('Release your claim on a task') and its effect ('returns it to open so others can pick it up'). It clearly differentiates from sibling actions like task_claim, task_complete, and task_fail by specifying the unclaiming action and the resulting state.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when you're stepping away mid-flight and the task isn't done or failed', with concrete examples. Also provides a precondition ('Only the agent that claimed it can unclaim it'), which guides correct invocation and implicitly indicates when not to use (if done/failed, use other tools).

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