Release todo

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

The description clearly states the behavioral effect: the claim is cleared and the item is not completed. This adds useful context beyond the annotations, and it does not contradict readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false. It also helps the agent understand the tool is a state change but non-destructive.

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?

A single sentence delivers the core action, the crucial exclusion, and a concrete use case. There is no wasted text and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is largely sufficient: it names the action, gives an example scenario, and prevents confusion with completion. It does not mention prerequisites like whether the item must already be claimed, but that is a minor gap for such a simple operation.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter description coverage for 'id', so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description's use of 'item' instead of 'todo' is slightly loose but not confusing.

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 verb 'Clear' and resource 'in-progress claim on an item' make the action concrete. The qualifier 'without completing it' explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling todo_complete, so an agent can tell them apart at a glance.

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 'e.g. you're pausing this work' gives a practical scenario for when to use this tool. It implies this is for temporary pauses rather than finishing work, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as todo_claim or todo_complete as routing options.

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