Promote Release

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of exposing behavior. It discloses a critical non-obvious trait: promotion is not immediate and requires a preview-then-confirm sequence with a token. It could additionally mention side effects like replacing or targeting a release, but the two-step requirement is genuinely useful and not visible from the schema alone.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose comes first, and the crucial workflow constraint follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 schema already documents all parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the key non-obvious workflow step. It would be slightly stronger if it explicitly said that the preview is obtained by calling promote_release with confirm=false, since no sibling preview tool exists. As written, the agent must infer that the same tool performs both steps.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context by linking the confirmation_token to the preview step, but it does not materially add meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. Baseline 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 specific action: 'Promote a release from one track to another.' This distinguishes it from siblings like halt_release, update_rollout, and deploy_app. The verb 'promote' plus the source/destination track relationship leaves little ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives useful process guidance ('Two-step: preview first, then confirm with the preview's token') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like deploy_app or update_rollout. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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