Release Decision Task

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

Annotations only signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: the non-decision release semantics, epoch-bump side effect, HTTP 409 on stale epoch, and detailed auth failure behavior (403 names what is missing, 'tell the user, do not retry'). No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then organized into scannable labeled sections (USE WHEN, NOT FOR, ARGS, AUTH). Every sentence earns its place given the tool's complex auth and epoch semantics; there is no filler.

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 mutation tool with complex auth, epoch semantics, and sibling ambiguity, the description covers what it does, when and when-not to use it, parameter behavior, error codes, and authentication requirements. No output schema exists, but for a release action this is adequate. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema, including the stale-epoch-409 behavior on execution_epoch. The description's 'ARGS: task_id and execution_epoch. Stale epoch is HTTP 409' adds marginal reinforcement but little new meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'Release a claimed decision task back to available without deciding it'. It also names the side effect (next claim bumps the epoch) and explicitly distinguishes itself from talonic_fail_decision_task and talonic_heartbeat_decision_task. An agent can select it correctly without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Provides an explicit USE WHEN condition (cannot finish within lease/SLA but another claimant could decide) and a NOT FOR clause naming the two alternatives (fail, which raises a review; heartbeat, which keeps the lease). This is model guidance for when and when-not, leaving nothing to inference.

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