Release a claimed feature, returning it to the available pool so other workers can claim it.
Give up a claim, returning the feature to the pool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| cwd | No | Directory identifying the project and the tree. Defaults to this session's working directory, which in a git worktree is that worktree. | |
| worker | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the core side effect—the claim is given up and the feature returns to the pool—but it does not explain prerequisites, reversibility, error behavior, or effects on related data such as history or links.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and outcome, and every phrase earns 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?
Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-liner is too thin for reliable autonomous invocation. An agent gets no detail about what id and worker mean, what success or failure looks like, or what exact post-conditions hold beyond the bare outcome.
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 only 33%, covering only cwd. The description adds no direct explanation of the required id and worker parameters; it vaguely implies that id identifies the feature and worker identifies the claimant, but the required inputs remain largely undocumented.
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: 'Give up a claim, returning the feature to the pool.' It clearly communicates the operation and distinguishes feature_release from sibling tools like feature_claim and feature_reassign.
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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a worker wants to surrender a claim and make the feature available again. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the use case is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.