release

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the effect (others can then edit) and the two scoping modes, but says nothing about permissions needed, whether releasing unheld/foreign objects errors or is a no-op, whether the action is reversible, or what the response contains — significant gaps for a lock-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 compact sentence with the effect front-loaded ahead of the scoping options. No filler, no redundancy.

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 two-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the ids-optional-equals-all semantics. It falls short on session scoping behavior, error cases for unheld objects, and return values — knowledge the schema alone does not supply.

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 50%: 'session' is documented in the schema, but 'ids' has no schema description. The phrase 'the named ones, or all' compensates by telling the agent that omitting ids releases everything, which is real meaning beyond the schema. It still leaves the id format and per-object failure semantics unstated.

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 states a specific verb ('release') and resource ('held objects') along with the effect ('so others can edit them'), which is far more informative than the bare tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like modify_objects or delete_objects, but the lock-release concept is distinct enough that an agent can identify it.

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 phrase 'so others can edit them' implies the collaborative scenario that motivates the call, and 'the named ones, or all' signals two usage modes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must you hold the objects first?), and no exclusions.

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