Replace releases on a Google Play track in an edit

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description earns credit by explaining the exact destruction pattern: the entire release list is overwritten, so unlisted releases are silently dropped. It also discloses the deferred-effect model (nothing is live until commit_edit), which is behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotations or the bare schema.

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?

The mutation warning and replacement semantics are correctly front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no filler. However, the middle sentence about retaining releases reads as a usage note fragment, and the description stops short of a compact, well-structured hint about the parameters it leaves undocumented.

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 destructive, four-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description covers the two highest-stakes facts (full replacement and deferred commit). It is still incomplete for correctly populating the nested release objects an agent must construct, leaving a real risk of malformed or over-permissive release payloads.

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 four required parameters, so the description must carry the burden, and it does so only for the releases array by implying it must be a complete list. Nothing explains packageName, editId provenance, what a track identifier looks like, or the meaning of nested fields like status, userFraction, and countryTargeting.

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?

"MUTATES an app edit: replaces the full release list for a track with the supplied releases" gives a specific verb (replaces), a specific resource (release list for a track), and the containing scope (an edit). The word "replaces" also distinguishes it from an incremental add/attach operation, so an agent can tell what class of operation this is without opening the 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?

"Include any existing releases you want to retain" is concrete when-to-use guidance for a full-replacement call, and "Changes do not go live until commit_edit" names the required follow-up step in the workflow. What is missing is any explicit "do not use this if..." routing against siblings such as list_track_releases or get_track when the agent only wants to inspect state.

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