dsh_release_workspace

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

Annotations already indicate destructive=true, and the description adds valuable context by clarifying that releasing the claim does not close the DSH session or stop Web/Codex from editing. This helps prevent misuse. It could add more about consequence (e.g., whether the claim can be reacquired), but the added exclusions are meaningful beyond the structured hints.

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 two sentences and immediately front-loads the primary action and resource. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second clarifies non-effects. No filler or repetition.

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 low-complexity tool with one obvious parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and key exclusions. It does not describe return values or post-conditions, but given the simplicity and the sibling context, it is sufficiently complete. Slightly more detail about what happens after release would push it higher.

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?

There is one required parameter, taskId, with 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions taskId nor explains that it identifies the bridge task whose workspace claim is released. While the name and pattern are somewhat self-evident, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's role.

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 specific action ('Explicitly release') on a specific resource ('this bridge task's persistent workspace claim'). It also clearly distinguishes itself from related actions by noting it does not close the session or stop editing, which separates it from siblings like dsh_cancel and dsh_continue.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to release a workspace claim. It also clarifies what it does not do, providing useful boundaries. However, it does not explicitly reference alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X', so it lacks the explicit when-not/alternatives guidance of a perfect score.

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