play_upload_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it flags this as an 'external action', explains that on commit the release becomes visible to testers or the public, and requires user confirmation of the track. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or reversibility, keeping it short of 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?

Front-loads the main action, then layers the side-effect warning and the enum reference compactly. Every sentence is useful; the trailing parameter lists are slightly terse but earn their place given zero schema coverage.

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 explained, and the mutation semantics, visibility consequence, and confirmation requirement are covered. The gap is missing permission/authorization context for a write tool with no annotations.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real value by enumerating the accepted values for track (internal, alpha, beta, production) and status (completed, draft, inProgress, halted), which the schema omits entirely, but leaves aab_path, package_name, release_name, and release_notes_pt_br undocumented.

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 and resource ('upload an .aab and release it on a Play track, in a single committed edit'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like play_promote_release and play_submit_for_review. The scope of the operation (a single committed edit) is explicit.

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?

It tells the agent to 'confirm the track with the user', which is actionable guidance, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as play_promote_release or play_submit_for_review. Usage context is implied rather than framed as when/when-not.

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