paperclip_release_issue

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

Description discloses that the tool modifies state (clears executionRunId) and returns the updated issue object. Error handling details (401, 404, 409) add transparency beyond annotations, though no destructiveHint is explicitly given.

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?

Well-structured with sections for args, returns, examples, and error handling. No unnecessary text; every sentence adds value.

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 simple release operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, errors, and return value completely, enabling correct agent invocation.

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% with one parameter. Description adds example value ('PAP-42') and context for verification with list_issues, enriching the parameter's semantics.

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 a checked-out issue back to the board without marking it done, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like paperclip_checkout_issue and paperclip_update_issue.

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?

Includes explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' guidance, naming alternative tool paperclip_update_issue for marking done. Also provides error handling steps, making usage context clear.

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