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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the side effects (project rules, webhooks), the non-blocking behavior on unfinished issues, the return signals ('open', 'openIssues', 'already': true), the releaseDate override of a planned date, and the authorization requirement (project lead or admin only).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the remaining detail is substantive rather than filler. It is dense and parenthetical-heavy, which costs a little readability, but nearly every sentence carries behavior an agent needs.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description still explains the salient return fields ('open', 'openIssues', 'already'), the permission requirement, and the side effects, leaving no major gap for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it: version can be a name or an id from list_versions, released=false reverses the mark, and an omitted releaseDate writes today while overwriting a planned date as the releases screen does.

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 ('Mark a version released') plus the inverse behavior with released=false, and distinguishes itself from create_version/update_version/list_versions by describing release semantics rather than editing or listing. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the operational context — releasing fires project rules and webhooks, and it does not block on unfinished issues, so the agent should check 'open'/'openIssues' first. It also notes that releasing an already-released version is a no-op. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g. update_version for edits), so it is clear context without full when-not routing.

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