play_promote_release

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags that this is an external action, that promoting to production publishes the app, and that user confirmation is required. It omits permissions/auth requirements, reversibility of a promotion, and what happens to prior releases on the target track, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the safety-critical warning, then the optional rollout pattern. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the core action, the high-stakes production side effect, and the staged-rollout pattern — enough for a safe call. The remaining gap is the undocumented non-rollout parameters.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains status=inProgress and semantics of user_fraction (0.1 = 10%), but track, package_name, version_code, and release_notes_pt_br are left without any added meaning beyond their names and types.

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 (promote), resource (an already uploaded versionCode), and destination (another track), plus the key differentiator from the upload siblings: 'without a new upload.' An agent can immediately distinguish this from play_upload_bundle and eas_submit.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context (promoting an existing build rather than uploading) and routes staged-rollout users to status=inProgress with user_fraction. It does not name a sibling as an explicit alternative nor state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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