sign_design_release

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the release is immutable and persisted and that Kiln Pro is required, but it does not explain signing semantics, permissions, irreversibility, side effects, failure behavior, or what a successful response represents.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. However, the following sentences are mostly promotional/paywall content about Kiln Pro features and an upgrade URL, which does not help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with 15 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The definition provides only a high-level purpose and tier requirement, leaving an agent without enough information to call it confidently or understand its effects.

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 15 parameters, including nested objects and many optional fields such as ancestry, outcomes, provenance, assembly_json, and manual branding. The description only implies that a name and version are involved and provides no meaningful explanation of the parameters beyond their titles.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: sign and persist an immutable named release of a version. It is clear what the tool does at a high level, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling release-signing tools such as sign_feature_release or sign_decoration_preset_release.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus verify_design_release, list_design_releases, or the other release-signing siblings. The only prerequisite-like statement is 'Requires Kiln Pro', which is useful but not sufficient usage guidance.

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