release_claim

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation effect (marks claims cancelled, releases files), the restriction to in-progress claims only, and TTL-related expiration behavior. It does not mention permissions or permanence, but the key operational boundaries are well covered.

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 four short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: main action, use cases, constraint, and TTL edge case. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and contains no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the operation, when to use it, and the main edge cases. The primary gap is explicit parameter semantics, but overall an agent can infer the correct invocation context from the operational description.

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 needed to compensate for the bare input schema. It only loosely refers to '某个终端' (a terminal), which maps weakly to the agent parameter, and it never explains the optional project parameter or how the parameters relate to the cancellation scope. This is insufficient given the complete lack of schema field descriptions.

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 opens with the specific action '取消认领' and states that it marks all in-progress claims for a terminal as cancelled and releases files. This is a concrete verb+resource+scope statement that clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like claim_files and report_done.

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?

It explicitly lists when to use the tool: task cancelled, terminal offline, or claim stuck. It also provides negative guidance: reported/cancelled claims are unaffected, and expired claims do not need cancellation because the tool will prompt. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or contrast them.

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