release_host

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered. The description adds the lifecycle obligation ('always call when finished') but says nothing about what happens on a lock owned by someone else, whether the release fails, or how it interacts with force cleanup.

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 short sentences, action first and the lifecycle instruction second. Nothing superfluous.

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?

A low-complexity lock-release tool with full schema coverage, safety annotations and an output schema; the description tells the agent what it does and when to call it. Only edge-case behavior (non-owner release, forced cleanup outcomes) is left unstated.

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%, including examples for owner and host_id and an explanation of force, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline.

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+resource ('Release a host lock') that is clearly distinct from siblings like claim_host, register_host and heartbeat_host. It does not explicitly name the counterpart sibling, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

'Always call this when finished with a host' gives a concrete lifecycle trigger for use. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., only the lock owner may release, or use force for dead owners), which the schema covers only implicitly via the force parameter.

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