Create release

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses that other releases are retained during staged rollouts and that production calls silently degrade to a dry run without confirm_production.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the two highest-risk facts (preservation of existing releases, production dry-run gate) are front-loaded. Nothing here is 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?

For a 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main hazards: what is preserved, and the dry-run fallback for production. It stops short of explaining the dry-run preview return or interactions with the surrounding edit/commit flow, which would have made it fully self-sufficient.

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 schema already documents all 10 parameters including confirm_production, validate_only, and rollout_percentage. The description's mentions of confirm_production and staged-rollout retention restate or lightly extend schema content rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Creates a release') and narrows the scope to 'already-uploaded version codes on a track', which cleanly separates it from upload_bundle/upload_internal_sharing. It also distinguishes itself from a plain track edit by noting that existing releases are preserved.

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?

Gives one concrete usage rule (production requires confirm_production: true, otherwise dry run), which is genuinely useful. However, it never routes the agent between this tool and close siblings such as promote_release, update_rollout, or deploy, so the when-to-use-vs-alternative question is left to inference.

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