Update Rollout

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a two-step workflow ('preview, then confirm'), indicates that confirm is required after user approval, and notes that setting the percentage to 100 completes the rollout. It stops short of fully explaining preview mechanics or permissions, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core purpose, usage nuance, completion behavior, and required workflow with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every sentence 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 six parameters, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the two-step preview/confirm interaction and the endpoint's role. It could add a bit more about what happens during preview, but the schema fills in the remaining detail, so no critical capability is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the rollout_percentage can be increased or decreased and that 100 finalizes the rollout. It also reinforces the roles of confirm and confirmation_token through the 'preview, then confirm' workflow.

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: update the rollout percentage for a staged release. It clearly differentiates this tool from related siblings like promote_release or halt_release by narrowing the action to staged-release percentage changes. The completion behavior, 'Set to 100 to complete the rollout,' further clarifies the tool's role.

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 explicitly states when to use it: to increase or decrease the percentage of users receiving an update. It also gives a concrete completion condition. However, it does not name alternatives such as promote_release or halt_release, so the guidance is clear but not comparative.

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