update_trackConfigure a track's release settings by writing a new release list, replacing the current configuration for the specified track.
Update a track's release configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | Yes | Track to update | |
| releases | No | Release configuration to write to the track | |
| package_name | Yes | App package name (e.g., com.example.myapp) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update', which implies mutation, but it does not state whether existing releases are overwritten, whether a track must already exist, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur on active releases.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It immediately communicates the core action and target resource, which is ideal for quickly scanning.
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?
Although the schema is fully documented and an output schema exists, the description omits critical context for a mutating operation. There is no explanation of release configuration semantics, prerequisites, or behavioral effects, and there are no annotations to compensate.
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 schema already describes all three parameters clearly. The description adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions, 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 states a specific verb, 'Update', and a specific resource, 'a track's release configuration'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_track (creation), promote_release (promotion), and update_rollout (rollout percentage).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no conditions, exclusions, or mention of related tools such as create_track or validate_track. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.