tasks_release

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

Annotations already declare the mutation safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: the exact post-state (status=open, claim cleared), the authorization requirement (holder only), and the downstream effect that another agent can then claim it. It does not say what happens on a failed release or on session end.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then the constraint. No filler and nothing redundant with the name or schema.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essential semantics: what changes, who may call it, and the benefit to other agents. Minor gaps remain around failure/error behavior and whether releasing happens implicitly at session end.

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 100% and the session/session_id params are thoroughly documented in the schema itself. The description only implies session scoping via 'the current session holds' and adds no syntax or precedence detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 (task) and spells out the resulting state transition: 'status back to open, claim cleared'. The phrase 'so another agent can claim it' makes the inverse relationship to tasks_claim unambiguous without opening either schema.

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 precondition 'Only the current holder may release' tells the agent when this tool is valid, and 'a task the current session holds' scopes the use case. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. tasks_update for status changes) or stating when-not to use it.

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