promote_release

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that version codes are copied, defaults for rollout_percentage (10%) and submit_for_review (True), and that release notes/name are inherited unless overridden. It does not mention potential destructive actions or error conditions, but the core behavior is well-covered.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary followed by explanation and an argument list. It is slightly lengthy but concise enough; every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed by removing redundant phrasing but overall good.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main functionality, parameter semantics, and defaults. It does not describe return values or error handling, but the core use-case is fully addressed. Slightly lacking in prerequisites or postconditions.

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 0%, meaning parameters have no descriptions. The description compensates with a detailed 'Args:' block explaining each parameter, including defaults, examples (e.g., version_codes: [1234], release_notes: {"en-US": "New features"}), and meaning (e.g., submit_for_review). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Promote a release from one track to another.' It specifies the action (promote), resource (release), and scope (tracks). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_release and update_release by focusing on copying version codes between tracks.

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 common progression (internal→alpha→beta→production) and notes that release notes/name are inherited unless overridden. While it implies when to use the tool, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The context is clear but could be stronger.

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