commit_release

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the tool is blocked and disabled, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not specify what happens if the tool is called (e.g., returns an error, no-op), leaving a minor gap.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the critical 'CURRENTLY BLOCKED' warning, and wastes no words. Every phrase earns its place, making it efficient and 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 is blocked and there is an output schema (so return format is not needed), the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose and the disabled state, but it does not describe the exact failure behavior (error code, message, etc.), which would fully round out the context for an agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention the release_id parameter at all. The parameter is a single integer with a self-explanatory name, so the lack of extra detail is not critical, but the description adds no value beyond the 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 intended action ('Commit (perform) a release') and immediately signals its current non-functional status ('CURRENTLY BLOCKED'), which distinguishes it from functional sibling tools like create_release_plan. It is specific and unambiguous about what the tool is supposed to do.

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 explicitly says the server only creates release plans and that performing the actual release is intentionally disabled. This tells the agent not to use this tool for actual releases and implies create_release_plan as the alternative, though it does not name it directly. Clear enough to guide usage.

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