entangled_release_lock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the exclusivity of the lock and the trigger condition, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g., releasing a lock not held), whether release is idempotent, or what permissions/ownership are required.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though the bracketed '[ENTANGLED]' prefix is noise that does not earn its place.

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 core operation is conveyed. However, for a lock-mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the definition omits the ownership and error semantics an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% for both required parameters (resource_path, agent_id). The description only alludes to 'a resource' and 'an agent CLI' at a conceptual level, giving no guidance on path format or how the agent_id is matched to the lock holder.

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 and resource — releasing an exclusive lock — and scopes it to a finished agent CLI modification. It is clearly distinguishable from the acquire_lock sibling, though it never names that counterpart explicitly.

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 gives an implied trigger ('once an agent CLI has finished modifying a resource'), which tells the agent when to call it. It does not name the acquire_lock alternative, state prerequisites (must the caller be the lock holder?), or note when not to call it.

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