start_release

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool runs quality gates, waits for human approval, and that dry_run default prevents tagging/publishing. It could go further on approval mechanics and permissions, but the core behaviors are clear.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences each add distinct value: what the tool does, its workflow, and the dry_run safety caveat. There is no filler or repetition.

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 small-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key operational details: quality gates, human approval, and dry-run safety. It falls slightly short on explaining how approval is provided or how to know when the run is waiting.

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 describes params with 0% textual description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify dry_run strongly, but repo_path and version receive no additional format, constraint, or semantic context beyond their names and titles.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: start a release run for a repository. The second sentence adds what that run does (executes quality gates, waits for human approval), distinguishing it from siblings like deploy_process and approve_gate.

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 conveys a clear usage context: start a release run first, quality gates run, then the run waits for approval. However, it does not explicitly name when to prefer this tool over deploy_process or when not to use it.

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