Create a release

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuine value by explaining the specific destructive consequence: 'the fragments stop being separately editable' and that files are moved into the release directory. This goes beyond the annotation's generic destructive flag, warning the agent that the action is irreversible for those fragments. Combined with the destructiveHint=true annotation, this is solid behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences, zero waste. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the action and resource, the second adds the critical destructive consequence and preview instruction. 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?

The tool has 8 parameters but all are documented in the 100%-covered schema. It has an output schema and destructiveHint annotation. The description explains the core destructive behavior (moving fragments, losing separate editability) and the preview prerequisite. Given the complexity of the release operation, the description is adequate though it could mention what the output schema contains; however, with an output schema present, the description isn't required to explain return values.

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 every parameter is documented in the schema itself. The description adds marginal value: it clarifies the semantics of the key destructive parameter (fragmentIds: 'Omit to consume every unreleased fragment') which is a meaningful behavioral note. However, most parameter meaning is carried by the schema descriptions, so the 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?

The description clearly states the verb+resource+outcome: 'Consume selected unreleased fragments and create a canonical release record.' It distinguishes from siblings by describing the fragment-to-release mechanism, which is unique among changelog-related tools (project_changelog_add/list/patch/preview don't aggregate fragments into a release).

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 gives clear context: you consume fragments and create a release record. It implies this is the finalization step and that previewing (project_changelog_preview) is a prerequisite via 'preview first'. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative or give when-not scenarios, but the guidance is strong enough for selecting this tool over changelog add/patch/preview.

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