Release an Operations lane

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read, non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the 48-hour stale-timer alternative and the reason a stale 'held' state is harmful. It does not describe error behavior or permissions, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, with the action front-loaded and the rationale second. The final clause is colorful but does reinforce the motivation, so it mostly 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 simple two-parameter mutation whose safety profile is covered by annotations and which has no output schema, the description supplies purpose, timing, and rationale. It leaves only minor gaps, such as permission requirements and behavior when no claim exists.

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 50%; the lane parameter is documented as accepting a ref or lane id, but agent_id is undocumented. The description implies agent_id identifies the claimant giving up the lane, but it does not add format or edge-case semantics beyond that implication.

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 ('Give up your claim on a lane') that clearly identifies the operation. It is distinct from siblings such as claim_lane, update_lane, and list_lanes, so an agent can select it without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicitly frames the condition for use: when you stop working a lane, rather than waiting for the 48-hour stale timer. It also conveys the negative consequence of not using it, which is strong routing guidance.

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