Release Reservation

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the effect (returns released budget amount back to pool) and the non-committing nature. It does not contradict annotations and provides context beyond them.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (not shown), the description is largely complete: it states purpose, usage, and effect. It lacks error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., reservation must exist), but these are minor gaps. The sibling tools provide context.

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 must compensate. However, the description does not explain any parameters. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the lack of any parameter details leaves room for ambiguity, especially for the 'reason' parameter.

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 directly states that the tool releases a reservation without committing, clearly distinguishing it from cycles_commit and cycles_reserve. The verb 'Release' combined with 'without committing' precisely conveys the action.

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 explicit instruction 'Use when an operation is cancelled, skipped, or fails before execution' provides clear when-to-use guidance. It also implies when not to use (e.g., when committing, use cycles_commit instead).

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