release_version

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the action is irreversible ('cannot be canceled') and requires an explicit confirmPublish=true acknowledgement. It does not disclose the resulting state after publishing or any permission/rate-limit constraints, which keeps it from 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and state constraint, then the irreversibility warning, then the confirmation requirement. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 an irreversible, non-idempotent publishing action with no output schema, the description covers the essential warning and the confirm flag but omits the outcome (what state the version or app enters after success) and error behavior when the version is not in PENDING_DEVELOPER_RELEASE. Adequate to call safely, but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains confirmPublish as a required confirmation gate, which adds intent beyond the const:true constraint, but versionId is never characterized (allowed formats, where to obtain it, what states are valid), leaving one of two parameters semantically thin.

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 names a specific verb (PUBLISHES) and resource (an approved version) and adds a precondition state (PENDING_DEVELOPER_RELEASE), which separates it from create_version, submit_review and assign_build_to_version. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied through the state precondition: an agent can infer this call applies to versions already approved and sitting in PENDING_DEVELOPER_RELEASE. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, and no guidance on what to do if the version is in a different state.

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