Release a phaser build or audition

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that Preview is cleared and exited, that clear_normal triggers a ClearAll on the Normal programmer (destroying a running effect there), and that the result reports environment plus leftovers. It omits any permission/auth or error-mode notes, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the relationship to gma3_build_phaser before the mechanics. Jargon (ClearAll, Normal programmer) is domain-appropriate and nothing is filler, though it reads a little run-on.

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?

For a 2-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trigger, both parameters' effects, and the return ('reports the environment and what is left'). What an agent needs to call it correctly is essentially present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine cross-parameter semantics the schema only hints at ('Required with clear_normal'): the exclusive+clear_normal pairing and that it performs a ClearAll that stops an effect. That dependency explanation is real added value.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (release/stop the phaser build) and explicitly anchors itself as 'the stop/release path for gma3_build_phaser,' so an agent can pair it with that sibling rather than guessing. It also states the exact state it acts on (Preview environment from an interrupted build).

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: use it when the console is stuck in Preview after an interrupted build, and explains the additional clear_normal + exclusive combination. It does not, however, name an alternative for clearing programmers (e.g. gma3_clear_programmer, a live sibling), so the when-not-to-use side is left to inference.

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