herdr_owned_worker_release

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool revalidates several conditions and preserves the worktree/bytes, which is useful. However, it omits failure behavior (e.g., whether release aborts if validation fails), any side effects on the lease, or reversibility, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and immediately states constraints and key properties. It is concise with no filler, though it could be split for readability. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 9 required, no annotations, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It lacks parameter-level explanations, failure semantics, and usage context, so an agent cannot reliably determine how to call it correctly or interpret outcomes.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only references a few parameters indirectly (expected_head, expected_status_sha256, checkpoint_ref/sha256). It does not explain the purpose of lease_id, controller_id, controller_fence_token, expected_state_change_seq, or how they interrelate, making correct invocation difficult.

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 states the action 'Release' and the resource 'idle/done identity-matched writer', distinguishing it from worker start/verify/list siblings. It also specifies the exact preconditions (revalidating branch, HEAD, Git status digest, checkpoint) and the preservation guarantee, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternates like herdr_controller_release. It implies usage only for idle/done writers, but does not name alternatives or provide exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer selection among many release-like siblings.

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