Edit a release

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds real value on top by disclosing write-mode gating, partial-update semantics ('only the fields you pass are sent'), and the asset-preservation consequence of editing rather than recreating. It does not describe the response payload, but it is consistent with every annotation.

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 sentences, all front-loaded: action and identifier first, then field semantics, then the decision guidance. No hedging or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description notes parity of endpoint and response across Forgejo and Gitea, and write-mode gating is covered. Nine parameters with three required are adequately framed, though the shape of the returned release is only alluded to via 'same endpoint and response'.

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 every parameter including owner, repo, and release_id is already documented. The description restates the field list and adds only the optional-field semantics, which the schema's nullable defaults already imply.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit an existing release in place, by release_id') and enumerates the mutable fields, which separates it cleanly from create_release, get_release, and upload_release_asset in the sibling list.

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 concrete use case ('correct published release notes') plus the rationale for preferring it over delete-and-recreate, which loses assets. It also states the 'requires write mode' prerequisite, though it never names create_release as the path for new releases, so the exclusion is only implicit.

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