promote_release

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that version codes are copied, and release notes/name are inherited unless overridden. It also mentions the default rollout percentage. However, it does not explain what happens if the destination track already has a release, or whether the operation is reversible.

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: a single introductory sentence explaining the core purpose, followed by a brief note on common track promotion flow, then a clean list of arguments with explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job covering the purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status or updated release info), which would enhance completeness.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It provides detailed explanations for each parameter, including examples (e.g., package_name: 'com.example.myapp', version_codes: [1234], release_notes: '{"en-US": "New features"}') and clarifies defaults like rollout_percentage defaulting to 10% with 'Use 100 for full release'.

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' and uses specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings by describing the track promotion flow (internal→alpha→beta→production), which is unique among create, update, and publish tools.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to promote a release between tracks) and gives common examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternative tools like create_release or update_release.

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