aya_agentes_liberar_lock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the whole burden and only states the operation, not its consequences. It does not disclose whether release is idempotent, whether an invalid/stale token fails or is ignored, or whether the lock is owned by the calling agent. For a mutating shared-state operation this is insufficient.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the key action is front-loaded. It is concise but arguably under-sized for a tool with two required parameters and no annotations, so it does not quite earn top marks.

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 mutating operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain the lock lifecycle, the relation to each 'tarefa', return values, or prerequisites. An agent cannot know from this text when it is safe to call the tool. The information provided is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 0%, and the description only references 'token', giving the token a clear role as the release credential. The required 'tarefa' parameter is never mentioned, and there is no explanation that the token should come from a prior lock acquisition. It adds too little to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 phrase 'Libera lock usando token' clearly states the action (release lock) and the instrument (token), and the sibling set includes aya_agentes_adquirir_lock, making the release-vs-acquire opposition visible. However, it does not define what 'lock' refers to or mention the required 'tarefa' context. This is clear but not as rich as a fully self-contained definition.

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?

No sentence tells the agent when to call this tool, e.g., after aya_agentes_adquirir_lock, at task completion, or on failure. There is no exclusion or comparison with siblings, so the agent must infer from the name alone. This is at best implicit usage guidance.

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