kvm_key_release

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does state the core action, the all-when-omitted default, and the platform constraint, but it does not cover edge cases such as releasing keys that are not held or what happens when no keys are currently 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?

Extremely compact and front-loaded. The first clause states the action, the parenthetical adds the default behavior, and the suffix adds platform and tier context. Every word contributes value.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, default behavior, and platform constraints. Minor gaps remain around key value syntax and explicit linkage to kvm_key_hold, but the tool is simple enough that these are not critical.

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?

The schema only describes an array of strings with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully adds the 'all when omitted' semantics, but it does not define valid key names, formats, or accepted string values.

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 states a specific verb ('Release') and resource ('held keys'), and further clarifies the default behavior when keys are omitted. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like kvm_key_hold and other kvm_* operations.

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 description gives clear context: it is used to release held keys, with omission meaning all keys. It also adds an explicit platform restriction ('GLKVM/PiKVM only'), though it does not name the complementary kvm_key_hold tool as an alternative.

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