Release your path locks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool releases the user's own locks and mentions the 'all_mine' parameter behavior. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., whether releasing non-existent locks causes errors, if the operation is idempotent, or what happens with an empty paths array). Some behavioral context is present ('so the other agent is not blocked'), but gaps remain.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is slightly long but still clear. There is no unnecessary information. It could be more concise by combining the guidance with the parameter explanation, but it is effective.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, list of released locks), error handling, or the relationship with 'claim_paths'. The agent may not know how to verify the release or handle failures. The description is adequate for a simple use case but lacks depth for a robust interaction.

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 compensate. It explains the 'all_mine' parameter ('Pass all_mine=true to drop every lock you own'), but it does not mention the 'paths' parameter at all. The agent has no guidance on how to use the 'paths' array, e.g., what format paths should be in or whether they are required. This is a significant gap.

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 path locks you hold.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'claim_paths' (acquire locks) and 'check_paths' (check status) by specifying the action of releasing. However, it does not explicitly mention what happens if no locks are held, which could be clarified.

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?

The description provides a usage guideline: 'do this when you finish a chunk of work so the other agent is not blocked.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like 'check_paths' or 'coop_reset', but the guidance is sufficient for the primary use case.

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