rush_release

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It makes the key behavioral trait explicit: this is a dry-run operation and does not publish without explicit confirmation. This is meaningful beyond the simple verb 'create' and prevents an agent from assuming side effects, though it does not elaborate on file writes or other state changes.

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?

A single well-constructed sentence starts with the action and resource, and the crucial dry-run caveat is placed in the second clause. There is no filler or repetition; every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has only one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main safety requirement (dry-run, no publish). The main gap is the ambiguous meaning of 'path', but the tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema make the description largely 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 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the single required 'path' parameter, but it never mentions path or explains what it refers to (repository root, output location, config path, etc.). The schema's 'format: path' helps, but the description adds no semantic value for parameters.

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 ('Create') and resource ('dry-run release plan'), and the 'dry-run' qualifier explicitly distinguishes this tool from publishing/ship-related siblings such as rush_ship_gate. It clearly communicates what the tool does in one sentence.

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: use this to create a dry-run release plan, not to publish. 'Publishing requires explicit confirmation' is an implicit exclusion of actual release actions, though it does not name a sibling tool as the alternative for publishing. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the boundary.

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