create_release

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the release is self-written and that the customer provides content, but it does not disclose likely side effects such as placing an active order, triggering distribution, charging, or needing permissions. For a mutating create tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 description is two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and the second provides a direct alternative, making it fully front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers only the self-written vs. writer-written distinction but omits key context such as return values, distribution side effects, scheduling behavior, and sandbox/draft semantics. It is not complete enough for an agent to safely invoke this tool in all scenarios.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, but it also does not need to; the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden and the description avoids redundant repetition.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a self-written press release') and clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling order_written_release by specifying that the customer provides full content. It is immediately obvious what the tool does and how it differs from similar options.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (customer provides full content) and explicitly directs users to order_written_release as the alternative when Press Advantage writers are needed. This provides clear decision-making guidance against the most relevant sibling tool.

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