Upload a ModDB release

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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, destructive operation; the description adds the crucial consequences the annotations cannot convey: the uploaded file is irreversible ('cannot be replaced afterwards'), a confirm:true guard is mandatory, and identifier/version may be silently overridden by auto-detection from the zip. That is exactly the extra context a mutation tool needs.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, and the operation's shape is front-loaded before the constraints and the irreversibility warning. Every sentence carries a distinct piece of decision-relevant information.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool this covers nearly everything an agent needs: irreversibility, the confirm gate, the file location constraint ('on the machine running this server'), and per-category parameter rules. The only unaddressed area is authentication/precondition expectations, which is a minor gap given the annotations already flag destructiveness.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, and the description adds cross-parameter conditional logic the schema does not state: version is required only for non-game-mod categories and ignored for game mods, and game_versions is required for game mods. It reinforces rather than merely restates the confirm requirement.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('upload and publish a new release') with the scope parenthetically clarified as 'zip in, one release out'. The word 'new' implicitly separates it from update_release and retract_release among siblings, so an agent can route correctly without opening other schemas.

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 conditional context: game mods auto-detect identifier/version from modinfo.json and require game_versions, non-game-mod categories require an explicit version, and the build should be verified first. It stops short of naming when to prefer update_release/retract_release instead, so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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