release_claims

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

With no annotations, the description discloses a key behavior: releasing without recording a result. However, it does not mention whether the action is reversible, any side effects on related data, or permissions. This is adequate but leaves some uncertainty about consequences.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy that isn't already present in the schema (which is acceptable).

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives sufficient context to understand what it does and when to use it. It lacks a description of return values, but for this simple action that is not a significant gap.

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?

The schema already explains the claim_ids parameter and its omission behavior, and the tool description merely repeats the same information ('Omit claim_ids to release everything you hold'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional semantic value.

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 clearly states the action ('hand leased nodes back') and distinguishes it from recording results, explicitly contrasting with tools like record_evidence. It also gives specific scenarios (work not run, context reset) that clarify its scope.

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 when-to-use guidance ('for work you have decided not to run, or for resuming after a context reset you cannot report on'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent in selecting this tool over siblings like record_evidence or renew_claim.

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