Release (Teamwork)

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important context: that pending changes are sent along with the release (a side effect not implied by the schema), the exact output shape including error entries, and the critical non-error solo-project behavior. However, it does not describe permission requirements or conflict handling beyond the enableDialogs flag.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by side-effect guidance and edge-case behavior. Every sentence carries useful information; no filler.

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 the destructive annotation, no output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers the essential behavior including the non-obvious solo-project no-op and the side effect of sending pending changes. Minor gaps around error/conflict handling, but overall sufficient 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'reserved elements and/or object sets' which maps to the parameters, and the objectSets description in the schema already explains the enum values. The description adds no parameter syntax or format beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('releases') and resource ('reserved elements and/or object sets') with explicit scope, and distinguishes itself from sibling reserve_elements by naming the inverse operation. The solo-project behavior is also clarified, making it unmistakable which direction this tool operates in.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative 'teamwork_send' and the condition that selects it ('call teamwork_send first to send everything with a comment'). Also clarifies when NOT to expect errors (solo project) and when object sets are needed (before editing attributes). Clear when-to-use and when-not.

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