verfi_unclaim_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real side effect (retention drops to 30 days) plus a permission constraint. It does not cover reversibility (whether the session can be re-claimed), idempotency, or failure behavior on an unclaimed ID.

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?

Three short sentences with the action, the side effect, and the constraint in order of importance. No wasted text.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, and authorization. The remaining gap is error/reclaim behavior, which is minor but would help an agent recover from failure.

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% and the single verfiID parameter is already documented as the session to unclaim, so the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb ('Release') and resource ('previously claimed session'), which clearly pairs it against the sibling verfi_claim_session. It doesn't name that sibling explicitly, but the 'previously claimed' qualifier makes the distinction unambiguous.

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?

Gives an actionable precondition ('previously claimed session') and an authorization gate ('Only the claiming tenant can unclaim'), which tells the agent when the call is valid. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming alternatives such as verfi_update_expiration for retention changes.

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