td_release_scope

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an ownership requirement and urgency around timing, which is useful. However, it does not describe failure behavior, idempotency, or side effects of releasing a claim—details an agent might need for a state-mutating 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?

The description is three short sentences with no filler: first sentence states the purpose, second provides timing guidance, third sets the ownership restriction. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes value.

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 a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core lifecycle—releasing a claim, when to release, and who may release. Minor gaps remain around error conditions and behavior for non-owners, but overall the definition is 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining the `path` and `owner` parameters. It only indirectly hints that `path` is the claimed subtree and `owner` is the claim owner in the ownership sentence, without explicitly defining their meaning, format, or expected values.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Give a claimed subtree back' followed by the condition 'before its claim expires,' clearly identifying both the action and the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like td_claim_scope, which handles the claiming side.

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?

It explicitly states when to call the tool ('as soon as a run of edits is finished') and explains the consequence of delaying (next agent waits out the full TTL). It also provides a clear constraint ('Only the owner named on the claim can release it'). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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