Recover debugger attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses optimistic-concurrency failure behavior (fails if the holder changed), lease-state-dependent branching, the user-approval requirement for live sessions, and the important side-effect boundary that detaching does not undo navigation, evaluation, or storage changes the holder made.

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, each carrying distinct load: purpose, invocation contract, lease branching, and side-effect scope. The most decision-relevant fact (what identifier to pass and what happens if it is stale) is front-loaded.

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?

For an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema and only two required parameters, the description covers purpose, preconditions, failure mode, and postconditions well. The one gap is that no return value or success/failure signal is described, though the tool's failure semantics are at least stated.

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 50%: browser and confirmed are documented in the schema, while tabId and expectedSessionId are not. The description compensates by defining expectedSessionId as the occupant's sessionId (the identity the CAS check runs against) and reinforcing the semantics of confirmed, which is more than the schema states.

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 and resource — releasing a tab's debugger attachment — and narrows the scope to a lease 'left by another session,' which separates it from the sibling browser_cdp_detach. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer which detach path applies.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule plus the required precondition: pass the occupant's sessionId as expectedSessionId, and the call fails if the holder changed. It also branches the usage path — idle/expired lease releases directly, live lease needs confirmed=true after explicit user approval — so the agent knows exactly which arguments each case demands.

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