set_track_release

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

The description contributes one genuinely valuable behavioral fact not in the annotations: existing track releases are replaced, not appended. But annotations already cover the safety profile (destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description says nothing about the edit lifecycle (edit_id, commit_edit), whether the release is immediately live, or how halted/completed statuses behave.

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 tight sentences: the action and its replacement semantics come first, the usage hint second. No filler, no redundancy with the schema.

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?

An 8-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation needs far more than two sentences. The edit lifecycle (edit_id, eventual commit_edit), how user_fraction interacts with status, and which optional fields matter are all unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it only glosses version_codes (pre-uploaded) and hinting at user_fraction via 'rollout'. It says nothing about track values, status semantics (draft/inProgress/halted/completed), edit_id, package_name, release_name, or release_notes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stages a release ... on a track') and adds two distinguishing qualifiers: version codes must already be uploaded, and the call replaces current releases. That separates it from upload_bundle and commit_edit, though no sibling is named 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?

'Use it to promote a build or change a rollout' gives concrete usage context, and 'already-uploaded version codes' implicitly rules out using it for new uploads. No alternative tool or prerequisite workflow (edit_id / commit_edit) is named, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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