Release a generation-checked resource lease to free resources for other agents. Provide lease_id and generation to validate ownership.
Release the caller from a generation-checked resource lease.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lease_id | Yes | ||
| generation | Yes | ||
| binding_token | No | Opaque token returned by this agent's join_session or plan_session. Required for reliable identity when logical agents share an MCP connection. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the operation is generation-checked and scoped to the caller, which is meaningful. However, it doesn't mention what happens on stale generation, idempotency, or side effects of releasing.
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, front-loaded sentence conveys the core action without filler or tautology.
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 mutates resource state with no annotations and no output schema. Missing information includes failure modes (stale generation), idempotency, whether the caller must be the lease holder, and what a successful release returns.
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 only 33%: lease_id and generation have titles but no descriptions. The description adds 'generation-checked' which hints at generation's role, but it doesn't explain where lease_id/generation come from, how they relate, or what the binding_token does beyond the schema text.
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 uses a specific verb ('Release') and clearly identifies the object ('resource lease'), and 'generation-checked' adds useful distinguishing nuance. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like renew_lease, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., release_task, renew_lease, cancel/abandon scenarios). The phrase 'release the caller' implies self-release, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.