axint.agent.release

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

The description discloses that the tool updates local coordination claims under .axint/coordination with no network calls, which goes beyond annotations. Annotations already state idempotentHint=true, so the description adds location and network independence. However, it could mention that releasing all claims releases only matching ones, but the parameter descriptions cover that.

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 three sentences: purpose, usage guideline, and effects. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds unique information. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 complex tool ecosystem with many siblings, the description provides purpose, usage scenario, and behavioral effects. Annotations and schema cover safety and parameters, and output schema exists. The description is complete and sufficient for the agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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 schema descriptions are clear, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and when to use it, which indirectly informs parameter usage (e.g., 'omit files to release this agent's claims'). It doesn't repeat schema info, and context signals show high schema coverage with two enums, but the description doesn't over-explain.

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 releases active local Axint file claims for an agent after finishing or abandoning a task. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'axint.agent.claim' by explaining it unblocks other agents (Codex, Claude, Cursor, Xcode) due to stale claims.

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 explicitly says 'Use: use after finishing or abandoning claimed files so other agents are unblocked.' This gives precise when-to-use guidance and implies alternatives (not releasing before completion). It also explains why this tool exists, helping the agent choose over siblings.

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