resource_release

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only states the action without disclosing effects like idempotency, what happens on release, or any security/permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded, with no wasted words. It directly states the purpose.

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 tool is a mutating operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not cover important behavioral aspects such as whether release is idempotent, what errors may occur, or whether the agent parameter must match the original acquirer. This is a minimal but incomplete description for a simple operation.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'resource_id' and 'agent' documented adequately. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the baseline score of 3 applies since the schema already covers the parameters.

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 specifies the action 'Release' and the object 'resource lease', and the qualifier 'previously acquired' differentiates it from acquiring or checking resources. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like resource_acquire and resource_check.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the need to have a lease previously acquired, or what happens if the lease is already released. It does not mention idempotency, prerequisites, or error conditions.

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