publish_managed_release

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite (committed changes reviewed) and the no-op condition, but lacks information on whether the operation is idempotent, reversible, requires permissions, or has side effects. For a publish action, more detail on expected behavior and error conditions is needed.

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: three sentences plus an args section. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. The main action is stated first, followed by usage context and condition. Highly efficient.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core workflow: it explains when to call it (after other tools and review) and the no-op condition. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but for a straightforward publish operation, it is largely complete.

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 description provides an example value for the single parameter package_name ('e.g. com.example.myapp'), adding format context beyond the schema's just 'Package Name'. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more detail (e.g., constraints, validation rules) would be beneficial. The example is minimal but helpful.

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: 'Send approved changes live when Managed Publishing is enabled.' It specifies the verb 'publish' and the resource 'managed release', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_release, update_release, and promote_release by indicating it is the final step after review.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call after changes committed via create_release/update_release/promote_release have been reviewed in Play Console.' It also notes the no-op condition when Managed Publishing is off, setting expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it beyond the no-op case.

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