update_release

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses ability to update rollout and status, effect of submit_for_review, and the Managed Publishing hold. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or whether changes overwrite existing settings completely.

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?

Description is moderate length, uses examples upfront, bullet lists for parameters, and a NOTE for important caveat. Could be slightly more concise, but structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and mutation tool, description covers all parameters with examples and default behaviors. Missing info on return value or error handling, but overall adequate for agent decision-making.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: allowed values (status), defaults (track='production', version_codes='first release found'), and behavior (rollout_percentage=100 completes). Adds significant value beyond the raw 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?

Description clearly states verb ('Update') and resource ('existing release'), specifies scope (rollout percentage and/or status), provides examples, and distinguishes from siblings like create_release and promote_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?

Description gives examples of when to use (increase rollout, complete, halt, resume) and includes a NOTE about Managed Publishing pointing to publish_managed_release. It lacks explicit exclusion of siblings but context and examples imply appropriate use.

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