Contract Testing: Record Release

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

Annotations already indicate `readOnlyHint=false` and `destructiveHint=false`, so the description's addition of 'Record' is consistent. However, no further behavioral details (e.g., side effects, permissions) are provided.

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 with one clear sentence and a toolset line. The bullet list of parameters is slightly redundant but not overly verbose. Front-loads purpose well.

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 simple record-creation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action and parameter roles. However, it lacks mention of return values or confirmation behavior, leaving minor gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter names and descriptions already in the schema, adding no new meaning beyond what is already structured.

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 clearly states it records a release of a pacticipant version to an environment, specifying the use case for mobile/library release workflows. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `contract-testing_record_deployment` by focusing on releases.

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 implies usage for mobile/library release workflows but does not explicitly differentiate from `contract-testing_record_deployment` or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but not directive.

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