Release symbol reservation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states 'Side effects: updates reservation state and audit rows,' which discloses mutability. 'Output: count of released symbol reservations' and 'Failure modes: returns zero when no matching reservation exists' further clarify behavior. Missing details like permissions or reversibility, but sufficient for safe invocation.

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 uses structured headings (Purpose, When to use, Inputs, Side effects, Output, Failure modes) and is extremely concise. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, input grouping, side effects, output format, and failure conditions. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and limitations without additional context.

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% with individual descriptions. The description adds semantic grouping: 'workspace_id plus reservation_id or symbol, optionally scoped by agent_name,' clarifying that reservation_id or symbol are alternatives and agent_name is a scope filter. This adds value beyond the flat schema descriptions.

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 'Purpose: Release active symbol reservations.' This is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'release_reservation' and 'renew_symbol_reservation' by focusing on symbol reservations and mentioning use after finishing work on functions, classes, or APIs.

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?

'When to use: call after finishing work on a function, class, API, or other reserved symbol.' gives clear context and timing. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the failure mode mention ('returns zero when no matching reservation exists') provides guidance on outcome. Sibling differentiation is implied but not explicit.

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