create_release

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

Beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations, the description discloses the concrete destructive behavior ('replacing same-named files'), the exact loudness/limiting algorithm, per-format encoding, artwork embedding targets, stems handling, and the deterministic output path and release.json contents. This is rich behavioral context that materially informs invocation.

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 tool's purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by dense, largely load-bearing technical detail. It is somewhat long, but given 13 parameters and no schema descriptions, most sentences earn their place.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing output contract (directory layout and release.json contents) and processing semantics. The main shortfall is that several metadata parameters are left undocumented, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does so well for the non-obvious parameters: target_lufs (with -14 streaming note), true_peak (dBTP), formats (default all, enumerated values), artwork (JPEG/PNG), and stems ('auto' vs paths). It omits explicit meaning for several metadata params (year, album, genre, track_number) and the source/output_dir params, so a few gaps remain.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Master and package a finished song.' It enumerates the concrete pipeline (normalise, encode, tag, embed artwork, write release.json) and clearly distinguishes this finishing step from the bounce it consumes, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like bounce/export_audio.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'a bounced master' and 'the bounce's other files' signals this runs after a bounce, but the description never states the prerequisite explicitly or names a when-not/alternative. The agent can infer the workflow position but receives no explicit routing guidance.

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