Release shared use

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious semantics beyond that: the task regains its individual assignment but carries the shared value rather than its original one, and the shared entry vanishes once the last task is released. That 'original value is not restored' nuance is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the core action and the resulting state before the sibling reference and undo note. No filler, though the parenthetical cross-reference and menu-name aside are slight extras.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers outcome, side effect on the shared entry, reversibility, and the sibling relationship. The only gap is error/edge behavior when the task is not currently in shared use.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description hints at the single-task scope ('one task', 'the shared entry') but adds no format or enum detail beyond what the schema supplies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Takes one task back out of shared use') and immediately gives the resulting state, distinguishing it from the create counterpart by name. An agent can tell exactly what this does and which sibling mirrors it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names rillsoft_machine_sharing_create as the counterpart and frames this as the 'Exclusive' menu entry's opposite plus a single undo step, which tells the agent when this tool applies. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., what happens if the task is not currently shared).

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