update_rollout_android

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the critical safety behavior that without confirm=true the call only validates against Google Play and publishes nothing, and it explains that halt stops a rollout rather than advancing it. Gaps remain on required OAuth/permission scope and whether a halted or completed rollout is reversible.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the three outcome modes, then the safety caveat. No filler and nothing buried.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, the description covers the highest-risk unknown (dry-run by default) and the mode selection, and an output schema exists so return values need no prose. What's still missing is permission/auth requirements and the effect of competing or concurrent rollout changes, which matters for a production release operation.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines rollout as a fraction where 1 means complete, defines halt=true, and defines confirm=true as the publish gate. Only package_name and version_code are left unelaborated, which is acceptable since they are self-evident identifiers.

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 (change) and a specific resource (a Google Play production release's rollout), and enumerates the three distinct outcomes it can produce (set fraction, complete at 1, halt). This is enough for an agent to tell it apart from upload_android, promote_android, and status_android without opening any schema.

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 implies usage through its parameter narrative ('1 to complete it, or halt=true to stop it') and the confirm behavior, but never states when to choose this tool over the closely related promote_android or release_ios siblings. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites, so the agent must infer the routing.

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