Release

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds nothing about what is mutated, that dry_run defaults to true (so nothing is written unless overridden), or what permissions are needed. With no annotations-level context supplemented, it fails the behavioral burden.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency; the single fragment carries no actionable content and nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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 an eight-parameter mutation tool in a crowded rollout family, the description omits purpose, workflow position, safety context around dry_run, and any routing signal. An output schema existing does not excuse the near-total absence of descriptive content.

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 100%, so all eight parameters (dependency, floor, group, dry_run, jobs, only, extra, manifest) are self-documented. The description adds no extra meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies rather than a penalty.

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 description is 'Release (rm_rollout).', which merely restates the title 'Release' and echoes the tool name fragment. It gives no verb-plus-resource statement of what the tool actually does (e.g. bumping dependency floors across a group of repos), so it is indistinguishable from siblings like rm_rollout_plan or rm_rollout_apply.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus rm_rollout_plan, rm_rollout_apply, or rm_rollout_status, and no mention of prerequisites such as requiring a workspace.yml or clean worktrees. The agent is left to guess the stage in the rollout workflow.

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