lane_release

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the lane is unassigned and returns to the board as open, plus an ownership precondition ('a lane you own'). It omits what happens if you don't own the lane, whether release is reversible, whether the optional reason is persisted, and any confirmation of the resulting state.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the action and its consequence front-loaded before the usage guidance. Every clause earns its place, including the justification for why parking a lane is harmful.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the resulting state, and the ownership precondition well. It is incomplete on the optional `reason` parameter and on failure modes (e.g., releasing a lane you don't own), which matter for a state-changing tool.

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%: `id` is described only as 'lane id' and `reason` has no schema description at all. The description mentions no parameters, so the `reason` field's purpose and expected content are undocumented in both places — exactly the gap the description should fill at this coverage level.

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 — 'let go of a lane you own without finishing it' — and adds the resulting state ('returns to the board as open for anyone'). The phrase 'without finishing it' implicitly separates it from completion-oriented siblings like lane_submit, though no sibling is named.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition: 'Use when you park work rather than complete it,' reinforced by the rationale that idle claimed lanes reserve work nobody is doing. It never names the closest alternative (lane_handoff) or states exclusions, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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