Contract Testing: Record Release

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

The description claims the tool 'Record[s]' a release, implying a write operation, but annotations set readOnlyHint=true, indicating a read-only operation. This is a direct contradiction. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond the parameter schema.

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 and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence. It uses bullet points for parameters, making it easy to scan. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

While the purpose and parameters are clear, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., whether the operation is idempotent or has side effects) which is particularly important given the contradiction with annotations. It also does not explain how this differs from recording deployments, though the workflow hint helps.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description redundantly lists these parameters without adding new information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action: 'Record that a version of a pacticipant has been released to an environment'. It specifies the resource (pacticipant version release) and distinguishes from sibling tools like contract-testing_record_deployment by explicitly noting the workflow context 'for mobile/library release workflows'.

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 indicates when to use this tool (recording releases in mobile/library workflows) and its toolset ('Environments and Deployments'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like contract-testing_record_deployment for deployments.

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