surety__release_bond

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 states the primary action (release remaining stake to principal) and a key condition (refusal if claim open). However, it does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, or error handling for invalid bond_id, which would be expected for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence with a helpful prefix. It is concise with no extraneous information. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with context.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a critical condition. However, it lacks explanation of the bond_id parameter and does not describe return values or error states. Still, given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly 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 input schema has one required parameter (bond_id) with no description. The tool description does not explain what bond_id represents or how to obtain it. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should have compensated by explaining the parameter, but it failed to do so, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 clearly states the action ('Release the remaining stake to the principal') and the resource ('bond'), with a condition ('after the coverage window elapses'). The prefix '[surety — bonding + ruling-gated slashing (risk transfer)]' provides context, and the refusal condition ('refused while any claim is still open') distinguishes it from sibling tools like surety__slash_bond and surety__file_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 implies when to use the tool: after the coverage window elapses and no open claims. It explicitly states the refusal condition ('refused while any claim is still open'), which guides the agent on when not to use it. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the context from sibling tools is sufficient.

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