task_unclaim

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: ownership restriction, returning task to open, and optional reason logging. Additional details about error cases or state checks are missing, but the core behavior is well-covered.

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 brief (6 sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then usage, then parameters. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and parameters. It is complete for a tool of this simplicity, with no gaps in essential information.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, and the description's Args section adds value by emphasizing the recommendation for the 'body' parameter ('strongly recommended'), which goes beyond the schema.

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 ('release your claim') and the resulting state ('returns it to open so others can pick it up'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like task_claim, task_complete, and task_fail.

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 when-to-use scenarios ('stepping away mid-flight, blocked on async process, handing off') and a key constraint ('only the agent that claimed it can unclaim it'). Does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context is clear.

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