QMetry: Create Release

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

Annotations already signal this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: date format may depend on QMetry instance configuration, invalid dates will produce an error, projectID can be auto-resolved from projectKey, and cycle defaults are false. It does not cover duplicate names or permission requirements, but it adds meaningful operational detail.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is excessively long: six use cases, four examples, and seventeen hints contain repetition and generic advice. Some sections, such as the repeated "created successfully" expected outputs, could be condensed without losing value.

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?

Given the nested release/cycle objects, ambiguous date formats, and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: output shape, required fields, defaults, error behavior, hierarchy context, and a verification step. The only minor gap is not naming qmetry_create_cycle explicitly for adding cycles later, but the description still gives enough guidance to invoke this tool correctly.

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 67%, so the description carries extra responsibility for parameter meaning. The hints compensate by clarifying required release.name, the date format ambiguity, optional projectID resolution, cycle.name being required when cycle is provided, and default values for isLocked/isArchived. The examples further demonstrate real payload shapes, going beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Create a new release in QMetry," and clarifies the optional nested cycle. It clearly communicates the tool's primary purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling qmetry_create_cycle, so the distinction is left to inference.

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?

Use cases and hints provide clear context for when to use this tool, such as creating a release for a product version or creating a release with an initial cycle. It also gives conditional guidance like "omit [cycle] if you only want to create a release" and notes that cycles can be added later with other tools, but it never names qmetry_create_cycle as the explicit alternative, so exclusions are slightly underspecified.

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