create_release

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the managed publishing hold and submit_for_review behavior, but does not mention potential destructive aspects of replacement, idempotency, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 concise and well-structured, with a brief purpose statement followed by a bullet-like parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the managed publishing note is front-loaded for immediate attention.

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?

The description adequately covers parameters and the managed publishing workflow, referencing a sibling tool for follow-up. However, it lacks details on return values, error scenarios, and prerequisites, which would be helpful given the complexity and absence of an output schema.

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%, but the description adds detailed meaning for all 9 parameters, including valid values (e.g., track options), conditional behavior (e.g., rollout_percentage used only with inProgress status), and explanatory notes (e.g., country codes removing restrictions).

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 clearly states 'Create or replace a release on a track,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'update_release' (which likely updates) and 'publish_managed_release' (which publishes a pending release).

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 includes guidance on when Managed Publishing is enabled and advises to call 'publish_managed_release' to send live. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from 'update_release' and does not provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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