update_release_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly bears the full burden of disclosure. It adds the valuable constraint 'Notes are capped at 500 characters per locale by Google' and clarifies the mutation targets the active release only. Could go further by noting failure behavior or review implications, but this meaningfully exceeds baseline disclosure.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose/scope, prerequisite workflow, and hard constraint. Front-loaded with the action verb, zero filler, and no repetition of schema content.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: operation semantics, exclusion scope, a prerequisite call, and a hard constraint. It could note reversibility or review implications given the 'replace' semantics, but given the surrounding schema already warns about full-set replacement, what's present independently conditions the agent well.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description pushes beyond by warning of the 500-character limit on text (a constraint absent from the schema) and directing the agent to get_track to discover valid locale values. This meaningfully enriches the release_notes parameters without redundancy.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Replace') with a precisely scoped resource ('localized release notes of the active release on a track') and explicitly distinguishes what it does NOT touch ('version codes, status and rollout fraction'), differentiating it from siblings like update_rollout and promote_release. The 'what's new' clarification disambiguates the Google Play terminology.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to 'Use get_track first to see the current notes and which locales exist,' naming a specific sibling as a prerequisite. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement contrasting with non-sibling alternatives, but the 'leaving...untouched' phrasing implicitly scopes its purpose against sibling tools like update_rollout.

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