Revert to ready

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

With only mutability annotations and no destructive hint details, the description carries the burden and discloses the claim-scope ('holder or stale claim only') and the precondition. It could be more explicit about the exact failure mode, but it already goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the action and resource, state constraints, and point to the alternative tool. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 single-parameter state-change tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, mutation scope, refusal behavior, and the key sibling alternative. Nothing essential for a correct invocation is missing.

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 schema documents 'id' as 'work item id W-NN' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the crucial constraint that the id must refer to a progress work item, which is not stated in 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 names a specific action ('Return a progress work item to ready'), a target resource ('progress work item'), and a side effect ('clear its session claim'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from 'undo', which prevents confusion with a similarly named sibling.

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 the applicable situation (returning an in-progress item to ready), a refusal condition ('refuses when the item is not in progress'), and the alternative ('For rolling back graph mutations use undo'). This gives an agent clear routing rules.

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