session_release

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it explains the critical nuance: `lease` presents a token for normal release, while `force` breaks the lease without the token as an operator override. This communicates the safety-relevant difference between a normal and a forceful release. It does not detail side effects of a forced break, but the most important behavioral distinction is present.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the operation and compactly distinguishes the normal path from the force path. There is no filler or repetitive detail.

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 simple lease-release operation, the description combined with a fully documented schema gives an agent enough to decide and invoke correctly. It does not mention return values or failure behavior, but with no output schema and a straightforward operation, this is a minor gap rather than a serious omission.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The tool description references `lease` and `force` and adds the 'operator override' framing, but it does not add substantial new meaning for `name` or `session` beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly identifies a specific operation, 'Release a session lease,' and distinguishes it from sibling lease-related tools by covering both the normal token-based release and the force override. This makes it clear that `session_release` is about releasing a lease rather than creating or inspecting one.

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 gives clear mechanics for how to perform the release but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like `session_close` or `session_lease`, nor when not to use `force=true`. The intended usage is mostly implied: release the lease when done with the session and only use force as an operator override.

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