dibs_release

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a behavioral trait beyond the schema: 'Leases also expire on their own.' However, it does not mention whether release is reversible, requires ownership, or what the response looks like, leaving partial disclosure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a useful behavioral note. No wasted words.

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 simple release tool with no output schema and optional parameters, the description plus schema is adequate. It explains when to use, the auto-expiry behavior, and the schema covers parameter semantics. It could mention the distinction between all and patterns, but that is already in the schema, making it reasonably complete.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters ('all' and 'patterns'), with 100% coverage. The description adds little to parameter meaning, only reinforcing that claims being released are the agent's own. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Release' with the resource 'your claims', clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dibs_claim and dibs_status by describing the act of releasing, not checking or claiming.

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?

It explicitly states when to use ('when you finish working on an area') and the benefit ('so other agents can proceed'). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know to use this after claiming.

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