zhiqi_collab_release

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 only says 'give up claim' and does not mention side effects, reversibility, required state, permissions, or what happens to the task or collaboration. This is especially insufficient 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?

The description is extremely concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler words. However, it is so brief that it provides little value; while efficient, it lacks the detail expected of a useful tool description.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and only a minimal one-line description. For a collaboration state-change tool with two required parametersOpportunity, an agent needs more context about preconditions, effects, and return behavior. The description is far from complete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of the parameters. The names 'taskNo' and 'reason' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify their expected formats, required semantics, or why the reason is necessary.

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 clear action, 'give up claim' (放弃认领), but it does not specify what kind of claim or resource is being released. It also does not differentiate this tool from similar collab siblings like zhiqi_collab_abort or zhiqi_collab_accept, leaving the exact scope somewhat vague.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains many collab workflow tools, but there are no conditions, prerequisites, or excluded cases mentioned, so an agent must infer all usage context from the tool name alone.

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