Release a lease you own on a specific key, making it available for other sessions to acquire.
Release a lease you own.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| project_id | No | Different project override. Use ONLY when the user explicitly asks for another project by name; otherwise stay in the current scope, even when results are empty. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| released | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without revealing side effects, return values, failure conditions, or permissions. For a tool that likely releases a lease (a mutating operation), this is a significant gap.
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 a single concise sentence, which is structurally simple. However, it's so brief that it barely adds value beyond the tool name. It is concise but not efficiently front-loaded with essential context, so it doesn't fully earn its place.
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 that the tool has a mutating action, no annotations, and an ambiguous required parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a lease is, what 'release' entails, or how the key maps to a lease. The existing output schema helps, but the description still lacks critical context for correct 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?
The description adds no parameter information. The schema already documents project_id with a clear description, but the required 'key' parameter is left undefined. With schema coverage at 50%, the description should compensate but doesn't, leaving the meaning of 'key' ambiguous.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Release a lease you own.' It clearly distinguishes from lease_acquire by the action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other lease-related tools or explain what 'lease' refers to in this context, so it falls short of a 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest other tools like lease_acquire. The only implicit hint is 'you own,' which is a precondition but not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.