Release claimed files in a project to free them for other collaborators. Specify file paths to release only those; omit files to release all your claims for the project.
释放你认领的文件。不传 files 则释放你在该项目的全部认领。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | No | 要释放的文件，留空表示全部 | |
| project | Yes | 当前项目根目录的绝对路径，例如 D:/code/ender-eda |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a mutation (release) and restricts scope to files you claimed, implying ownership enforcement. However, it does not disclose whether release is immediate, reversible, or requires specific permissions.
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 very short sentences are front-loaded with the core action and then the default behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and the optional-argument behavior adequately. It lacks any note on permissions or post-release state, but for this level of complexity it is nearly complete.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description restates the default behavior for files (留空表示全部), which matches the schema's description, adding no meaning beyond what the structured data provides. Baseline 3 applies.
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 (释放/release) and resource (你认领的文件/files you claimed), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling claim_files tool. The scope of the effect is immediately clear.
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?
Provides a clear conditional behavior: if files is omitted, all your claims in the project are released. This tells the agent when to pass files versus when to omit it, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.