Release a held execution seat and require handover notes so the next agent session can resume work without context loss.
Release held seat with mandatory handover brief notes for the next agent session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seat_id | Yes | Seat identifier to release. | |
| handover_notes | No | Sign-off summary of work completed and pending items. | |
| holder_session_id | Yes | Holding agent session ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that handover notes are treated as mandatory for the next agent session — notable since handover_notes is not in the schema's required list — but it says nothing about permissions, whether the release is reversible, what happens to the seat state, or the failure modes.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action precedes the requirement. Slightly compressed phrasing ('mandatory handover brief notes') but nothing is wasted.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the notes requirement but omits the mutation's side effects, authorization expectations, and error behavior. Adequate, but with clear gaps an agent might need to probe.
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 three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces handover_notes as mandatory and scopes it to 'next agent session', but adds no format or identity semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (release a held seat) plus an attached requirement (handover notes). This clearly contrasts with the sibling claim_seat, though it never names siblings explicitly. An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied: release a seat you are holding, providing handover notes for the next session. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that you must be the holder) and no reference to alternative tools like get_seat_status or claim_seat.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.