record_release_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait beyond the schema: approval decisions are gated on QA evidence. However, it omits mutation semantics, what happens on an expected_revision mismatch, and whether the recorded attestation is immutable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the precondition clause is placed after the core action. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a seven-parameter mutation tool.

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 7-required-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema, the description should at minimum explain the decision/revision semantics and the gate precondition's enforcement. It supplies only the gate hint, leaving the calling contract largely undocumented.

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?

Seven required parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Terms like 'release-owner' and 'approval' only loosely gesture at decided_by and decision; work_item_id, expected_revision, environment, and required_kinds are entirely unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('caller-supplied release-owner attestation'), which is meaningfully distinct from siblings like record_evidence and evaluate_qa_gate. It stops short of explicitly routing between those siblings, but the resource is identifiable.

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 clause 'approval requires the QA evidence gate' implies a precondition for approval decisions, but the description never states when to call this versus evaluate_qa_gate or record_evidence, nor whether the gate must be run first. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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