release

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it abandons without marking done, frees files for a partner, and pushes immediately. It also warns about the consequence of not using it (blocked files). Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well, though it omits details like reversibility or permission requirements.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence provides value. It is concise without being under-specified, covering purpose, usage context, and a critical warning in a compact form.

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?

The description is complete for the tool's main purpose: it clearly explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the immediate effect. It lacks explanation of the 'note' parameter, but given the simple optional parameter and presence of an output schema, the overall context is well-covered.

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 has one parameter 'note' with no description, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to explain the parameter's meaning, but it completely ignores it, leaving users to guess what 'note' does.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Abandon your current claim WITHOUT marking it done, freeing the files you were holding so a partner can take them over.' This uses specific verbs and resources, and clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'finish' (which likely marks done) and 'claim' (which acquires a claim).

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this when you're dropping the task or stepping away.' It also names alternatives: 'the only other exits are 'done' or manual git surgery,' providing clear decision-making context versus sibling tools like 'finish.'

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