Contract Testing: Record Release

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation; the description's 'Record' phrase aligns with that. It adds release-workflow context but does not disclose side effects, response behavior, or what happens if the release already exists.

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 key purpose is front-loaded and the organization is scannable. The parameter list is redundant with the schema, but the overall size is still appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

All three required parameters are documented and the workflow context helps an agent choose and invoke the tool. No output schema exists, but for a simple record operation the description is sufficient; explicit sibling routing would make it complete.

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% and the description repeats the same parameter meanings verbatim. It adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: records a released pacticipant version to an environment. The parenthetical '(for mobile/library release workflows)' differentiates this from the sibling record_deployment tool without ambiguity.

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?

Provides clear context that this is for release workflows, especially mobile/library releases. It does not explicitly name record_deployment as the alternative or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it misses the top bar.

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