dsh_release

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the write-lock release, that the session persists on disk, that forget=true mutates the registry, and quantifies the memory footprint (~300-480MB per session) plus the 'never reclaim' default. It is silent on what happens to in-flight work in a running session at release time and on error behavior for an invalid id.

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?

Each clause earns its place — semantics, persistence, forget, then the all=true memory tip — and the core action is front-loaded before the flags. It is somewhat dense and the ★/quote styling is decorative rather than structural, but nothing is wasted.

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 3-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision points: what is destroyed, what survives, and when to use each flag. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid conversation_id, active-session handling) and return shape.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining the memory rationale for all=true, the 'ignores conversation_id' interaction, and the registry-mutation consequence of forget=true. The interaction semantics (all overrides conversation_id) are the valuable addition.

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 and resource (release the DSH process / write lock held by a session) and immediately clarifies the scope: the session body stays on disk and remains resumable. The distinction between process release, registry removal (forget=true), and mass release (all=true) lets an agent separate this from siblings like dsh_interrupt or dsh_takeover.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance for each option: forget=true only when you want the registry entry gone, all=true when you want to reclaim memory all at once, otherwise the session stays resumable. It does not explicitly contrast with dsh_interrupt/dsh_takeover, which would have made the routing unambiguous.

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