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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'privacy-filtered' qualifier, which hints at data handling but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or response behavior. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentence with no wasted words, making it concise. However, it is under-specified and borders on a tautology, conveying little beyond the tool name. The brevity does not serve the agent well given the tool's complexity.

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 7 parameters, 4 required, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain parameter meanings, usage context, or expected results. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. It mentions 'project metadata' which hints at projectId, but handoffId, idempotencyKey, expectedVersion, and the details object are left undefined. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('hosted relay release'), adding a qualifier about privacy-filtered project metadata. It is specific enough to distinguish from many generic update tools, but does not differentiate from sibling relay_* tools like relay_status or relay_poll.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. With a large sibling list including multiple relay_* tools, the description leaves the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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