swarm_abstain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two real traits: no episode is consumed, and the reason must be non-empty. It says nothing about permissions, whether the release is reversible, or what happens to the swarm afterward, which leaves meaningful gaps for a state-changing operation.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key constraint ('without spending an episode') and the reason requirement front-loaded. No wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.

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?

Three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation. The description does not explain the swarm/worker identifiers, the effect on swarm state, or the consequences of abstaining, so an agent lacks enough to invoke this confidently in ambiguous cases.

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 0% for all three parameters. The description only constrains 'reason' (non-empty); swarm_id and worker are completely undocumented in both schema and description. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 concrete action and object: releasing a worker slot, with the notable condition that no episode is spent. It is more than a restatement of the name. However, it does not differentiate the tool from siblings like swarm_nominate or swarm_commit, and the jargon ('worker slot', 'episode') is left unexplained.

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?

There is no statement of when to abstain versus when to use swarm_commit or swarm_nominate, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit guidance is the name itself. An agent must infer the scenario from the verb alone.

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