release_prepare

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

With no annotations, the description bears the transparency burden. It discloses that it returns only command status (no stdout/stderr) and does not publish/push/tag. However, it does not specify behavior upon command failure (e.g., stop or continue) or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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?

The description is three sentences, concise and to the point. The front-loading of 'v1.3.0' is slightly noisy but does not detract significantly from clarity. Overall 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 description explains purpose, return type, and exclusions. However, with no output schema, it would benefit from specifying the status return format and more detail on the command guard mechanism. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the 'command guard' but the schema already covers parameter defaults and enum values. The description does not significantly enhance understanding of parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool runs project-policy release preparation commands, subject to the PatchWarden command guard. It explicitly lists what it does not do (publish, push, tag, create release), distinguishing it from siblings like release_check or release_verify.

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 provides context on when to use (when commands are pre-approved) and what it does not do, guiding the agent away from using it for publishing tasks. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools for alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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