Commit and publish a Google Play app edit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not the only safety signal. It still adds genuine context beyond them: the action affects live Play Console state, may publish a release, and fails when changes are already in review. It omits what a successful response contains, but no output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Two sentences, with the destructive nature front-loaded in the first clause so an agent cannot miss it. No filler or repetition of annotation text.

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 no-output-schema destructive mutation, the description covers danger, precondition, and the main failure mode. The remaining gap — meaning of editId/packageName — is real but minor for an agent already working within an edit lifecycle.

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 and only partly does. It explains confirmPublish as an affirmative publish confirmation, but editId and packageName carry no explanation in either the schema or the description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — commits every staged change in an edit, which can publish a release. That distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_edit or validate_edit, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

It states a hard precondition (confirmPublish=true) and a failure condition (changes already in review rather than cancelled), which is real usage guidance. It does not say when an agent should prefer validate_edit or discard_edit, so routing to siblings is left implicit.

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