release_content_lockRelease the advisory lock you hold on a content item, allowing other users to edit it. Use after finishing edits or to clear a stale lock.
Release the advisory lock on a content item held by the current API user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content_id | Yes | Content item ID,required |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v7.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered by structured data. The description adds the ownership constraint (you can only release your own lock), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about auth requirements or what happens if no lock is held.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the resource. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter lock-release tool with no output schema, the essentials are present, but the description omits the sibling relationship with force_unlock_content and get_content_lock, and does not state error/no-op behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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% for the single content_id parameter, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond identifying the item whose lock is released, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 gives a specific verb ('Release') and resource ('advisory lock on a content item') plus a scope qualifier ('held by the current API user'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling force_unlock_content, which is the one distinction an agent most needs.
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 phrase 'held by the current API user' implies the call is only valid for locks you own, which hints at when to prefer force_unlock_content. That inference is never stated explicitly, and there are no prerequisites or failure conditions spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.