clo_api_release

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait—handles expire when CLO restarts—which helps the agent understand handle validity. However, it does not state what happens after release (e.g., whether handles become invalid immediately, whether double-release errors, or whether this is safe to call multiple times).

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the target resource, the timing, and a key lifecycle fact without wasting any words.

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 simple one-parameter release operation, the description gives the essential information: what it releases, when to call it, and how handle lifetime behaves across restarts. It omits return-value details and error semantics, but the operation's simplicity keeps this from being a major gap.

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 0%, so the description must supply meaning for the single 'handles' parameter. It does identify these values as 'native API object handles', which adds semantic context beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain where the handles come from, their expected format, or what qualifies as a valid handle.

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 uses a specific verb ('Release') and a clear resource ('native API object handles'), making the tool's purpose immediately recognizable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clo_api_search and clo_api_doc, which fetch or describe handles rather than releasing them.

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 'when finished' gives explicit temporal guidance for when to call the tool. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the lifecycle framing ('handles expire when CLO restarts') implies that this is the cleanup counterpart to handle acquisition.

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