agenthold

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool releases a claim, notifies waiting agents via 'agenthold_wait', and includes possible responses with their meanings (e.g., 'released', 'already_free'). However, it lacks details on error handling beyond the 'error' response, such as retry logic or timeouts, which could be useful for an agent.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action and importance. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second emphasizes necessity, the third explains consequences, the fourth covers edge cases, and the fifth details responses. However, the response explanations could be slightly more concise, as they list multiple outcomes without grouping them efficiently.

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 complexity of a coordination tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, behaviors, and responses, which compensates for the lack of structured output. However, it could improve by explicitly mentioning the tool's role in the sibling ecosystem (e.g., linking to 'agenthold_claim' for context) or detailing potential side effects more thoroughly.

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 ('resource' and 'agent_id') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 by not compensating but not detracting from the schema's coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('release your exclusive claim on a resource') and the resource type ('a resource'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'agenthold_claim' (acquire claim) and 'agenthold_wait' (wait for claim). It explicitly mentions the verb 'release' and the context of finishing edits, making the purpose 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'when done modifying a resource' and 'if you claimed a resource but decided not to modify it, release it anyway.' It also specifies prerequisites ('You must register before calling this tool') and explains the consequences of misuse ('Holding claims longer than necessary blocks other agents'), offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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