doc_release

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait: the lock is released without saving changes, which is valuable. However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, failure behavior, or what happens to uncommitted changes beyond the implied abandonment.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and adds the key nuance in an efficient parenthetical. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description omits important lifecycle context: how the lock_token relates to doc_checkout, whether the release is idempotent, and what happens to edits made during the checkout. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully self-contained.

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 should compensate by explaining the parameters. It only hints at 'lock' and 'checkout' but does not explain what lock_token is, how to obtain it, or the role of doc_id and agent_id. An agent would need external context to correctly supply these parameters.

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 names a specific action ('libera o lock') and resource (the document lock), and clarifies the key distinction from a normal commit: it does not save ('sem gravar'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like doc_commit and doc_checkout.

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 parenthetical 'checkout abandonado' implies this tool is for abandoning a checkout and releasing its lock, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus doc_commit or when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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