commonly_release_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the handoff consequence of `declined` on a human broadcast (exactly one remaining original wake listener), the legacy semantics of omitting the outcome, and that a lapsed-lease miss is a result rather than an error. What it leaves out is what releasing does to the message's claim state and whether repeated releases are idempotent.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the branching semantics; nothing is filler. Some phrasing is insider jargon ('wake listener', 'legacy release behaviour for old drivers') that costs a little clarity without adding length.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the decision logic, the handoff side effect, and the main failure mode. The remaining gap is operational context — permissions needed to release and the resulting claim state — which an agent would want before calling.

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 0%, so the description must supply meaning, and it does for the non-obvious parameter: all three effective `outcome` states (declined, completed, omitted) are explained with consequences. `messageId` gets no explanation, but it is self-evident from the name and required-ness.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource — 'Release a message claim you hold' — which is unambiguously the inverse of a claim operation, so an agent can place it against the claim/complete family without opening the schema. It does not name a sibling explicitly, which keeps it just short of the top band.

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 states precisely when to choose each enum value: `declined` when you decide not to post a human-visible reply, `completed` after posting a reply, and omission for legacy/failed turns. That is near-complete routing guidance for the decision the tool encodes; there is no explicit 'do not use this when...' clause or named alternative tool.

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