Update rollout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: the production dry-run fallback and the fact that complete:true finalizes the release to 100%.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary operation is front-loaded and the production precondition follows immediately, so nothing can be skimmed past.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the two behaviorally risky parameters (complete, confirm_production) and the dry-run outcome. It omits return-value expectations and the managed-publishing/validate_only interactions, but the 100% schema coverage limits how much more is required.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, including complete, confirm_production, and rollout_percentage. The description restates the complete and confirm_production semantics without adding format or interaction detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (changes/completes) and resource (staged inProgress rollout) with an explicit scope constraint ('staged (inProgress)'), which separates it from sibling tools like halt_rollout, resume_rollout, and promote_release. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 a clear precondition for use ('On production this requires confirm_production: true, otherwise it is a dry run') and implies the tool only applies to staged rollouts. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., halt_rollout/resume_rollout) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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