abx_release_action_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and the title carries the PUT endpoint, so the description adds nothing new. It does not say what 'released' means operationally (e.g. version becomes deployable/visible), whether a version must first be unreleased, what permissions are required, or how projectId affects scope.

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?

It is short, but the first two lines restate the identical fact ('Mark an action version as released' / 'Marks an existing version of an action as released'), and the raw PUT path duplicates the annotation title. Redundancy rather than density.

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 state-mutating tool with no output schema and no description of the resulting state change, side effects, or prerequisites. For a release/state-transition operation, an agent needs to know the semantic effect of the action, which is absent.

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 id, projectId, and the nested body.version are fully documented in structured fields. The phrase 'existing version of an action' loosely reinforces the id/version pairing but adds no format, precondition, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource: mark an action version as released, with the underlying PUT endpoint. It's distinct from the inverse sibling abx_unrelease_action_version by implication, but the description never names that sibling or abx_restore_action_version, so the differentiation is left to the agent's inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the closely related abx_unrelease_action_version or abx_restore_action_version tools. The agent must infer from naming convention alone which state-transition tool to pick.

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