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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden and does so exceptionally: it discloses the empty-draft bug, the incorrect new_release_id echo, the non-publishing behavior, and the artifact precondition for start_rollout. There is no annotation coverage for safety/read-write profile, but the mutation semantics and its real-world side effects are clearly surfaced; only the auth/permission profile and pagination/return shape are left implicit.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then warnings, then follow-up steps — a sensible ordering. It is dense and uses heavy emphasis, but nearly every clause delivers a distinct, actionable caveat; only the 'despite what this description used to claim' aside is mildly redundant.

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 no-annotation mutation tool with a rich schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent truly needs: the downstream chain, the known bug, the unreliable echo field, and the publish step. Given no output schema exists, it even compensates by telling the agent where to verify results.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters including the release_id/version_code alternatives and the numeric track-id requirement. The description adds workflow semantics (destination id must be read via get_track) but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Promote an existing release to another track') and immediately adds the key scope constraint 'WITHOUT re-uploading the bundle,' which distinguishes it from create_release/upload_bundle. The mechanism (source track -> destination track) is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent through the required workflow: always follow with attach_artifact_to_release, then start_rollout, and use get_track instead of trusting the echoed id. It also states a when-not ('It does NOT publish') and names the consequence of skipping steps. Nothing is left to inference.

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