create_release_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It covers auth (requires JWT token), the non-destructive nature (nothing is published), and the automatic collection of completed build tasks with the prerequisite that builds must have completed tasks. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 key facts (doesn't publish, requires JWT) are front-loaded, and the Args section is cleanly structured. It is somewhat verbose — the whole_packages_only explanation and the build-task prerequisite sentence could be tightened — but every sentence earns its place and nothing is fluff.

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?

For a tool with 5 params, zero schema parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers the needed ground: prerequisites (JWT, completed build tasks), validation guidance, sibling pointers for valid values, and an explanation of the advanced whole_packages_only flag. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required.

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 fully compensate — and it does. Every parameter is explained: build_id, platform with a concrete example ('AlmaLinux-9'), product with examples and a pointer to get_products(), build_ids purpose, and whole_packages_only with its behavioral meaning. This fully covers the five parameters.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Create a release PLAN'), resource ('ALBS'), and mechanism ('computes which packages go to which repositories'). The contrast with the never-performed actual release clearly distinguishes it from commit_release, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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 is explicit that the tool never publishes and that committing the plan is intentionally unsupported here, implicitly routing the real release to commit_release. It also directs the agent to get_platforms() and get_products() for valid names and explains when whole_packages_only should be used (partial build superseded by a retry-failed build). It falls just short of naming commit_release explicitly as the alternative.

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