Release Version

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains the two-step API call semantics, the partial-failure contract (release persists even if the follow-up fails, error surfaced in next_version_error), the required access level (manage_project_threshold, default manager), and the inheritance restriction with the exact MantisBT error. This is rich behavioral disclosure an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core action and optional behavior, then layers failure semantics, constraints, and permissions in order. It is longer than average but every paragraph carries distinct, actionable information; no restated boilerplate.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by documenting the return shape ({ released } plus next_version/next_version_error). Combined with the failure semantics and permission requirement, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: next_version's name is used as-is with no automatic numbering, and timestamp defaults to now. These semantics go beyond what the schema states even though the schema already documents the parameters.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Mark a version as released and set its date,' plus the optional follow-up creation. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like update_version, create_version, and delete_version, which all operate on the same resource with different effects.

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?

States the conditional that governs the optional behavior ('The follow-up version is only created when next_version is given') and gives a concrete rule for when this tool is and isn't applicable (inherited versions must go through the parent's project_id). It does not directly contrast against update_version, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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