change_phased_release_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description does not disclose important behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or error states. It only states the possible actions, leaving the agent unaware of mutation implications or reversibility.

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 a single, short sentence that efficiently conveys the main actions. However, it could be structured to list the state transitions explicitly for quicker parsing. No unnecessary words.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what a phased release is, the consequences of each state change, or any constraints (e.g., timing). The context from siblings is not leveraged.

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 100% coverage, so each parameter is already described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema; it merely mentions the actions ('proceed, roll back, stop') which correspond to state values. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: proceeding, rolling back, or stopping a phased release. It uses specific verbs and a clear resource, and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'update_phased_release' by focusing on state changes rather than other modifications.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to change the state of a phased release), but it does not provide any explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like 'update_phased_release'. No exclusion criteria or context are given.

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