Release a claim

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance: the status handling rule that 'doing becomes next because active work without a claimant is a contradiction' and that doing is refused as an explicit target. The status-field description (inside params) explains the done-not-demoted edge case. Describes the force/actor interaction implicitly. Good behavioral context beyond annotations, though it could note the audit/permission implications of force more explicitly.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and trigger condition. No wasted words. Every sentence earns its place, and the nuanced status behavior is deferred to the parameter schema where it belongs rather than cluttering the 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?

For a mutation tool with idempotence declared and full schema coverage plus an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the action, the trigger, and the core behavioral twist (status handling). Could arguably add more on the force/reason authorization flow, but with 100% schema coverage and output schema present, the description carries adequate weight. Good completeness for its complexity.

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 100%, so all 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds specific behavioral context for the status parameter: the exception that a card just moved to done is not demoted by releasing, and the doing-becomes-next rule. This is genuinely useful semantic guidance beyond the raw enum/schema text. However, the description itself doesn't enumerate each parameter, relying on the full schema coverage, so baseline 3 plus the status nuance earns a 4.

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: 'Release your claim on a card and move it out of doing.' This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like project_card_claim (the inverse operation) and project_card_transition by focusing on claim release specifically. Clear and actionable.

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?

'Call when work stops, finished or not' provides clear trigger context for when to use the tool. It distinguishes releasing from simply transitioning by noting it moves cards 'out of doing.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, the purpose is clear enough that the agent can differentiate this from claim, transition, and patch operations. Lacks explicit exclusions naming sibling alternatives, hence not a 5.

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