create_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates a version but omits side effects, required permissions, duplicate-name behavior, idempotency, and error cases. The presence of an output schema is not reflected in the description.

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 concise and well structured, with a clear summary followed by a compact Args list. It avoids unnecessary repetition and presents parameter information in an easy-to-scan format. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, the definition should do more to explain permissions, prerequisites, side effects, and relationship to sibling tools. It also has an output schema but does not describe what is returned. The parameter list is helpful but insufficient for full contextual completeness.

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?

All five parameters are named in the description, with examples for project_key and name plus date formats for start_date and release_date. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not state required versus optional fields or null/default behavior. The description for 'description' is tautological and adds little semantic value.

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 name and first sentence clearly state the action and resource: create a new version/release in a project. Examples for project_key and name make the intent unambiguous. It is easy to distinguish from get_versions, update_version, and delete_version.

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 lists arguments but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, permissions, or constraints. It also does not explain when to prefer create_version over update_version or how it relates to release workflows. Only the argument list and date format examples are provided.

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