veto_release_notes

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail about rewriting dev-speak into plain English, which is a key trait not captured by annotations. No contradictions.

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 with no wasted words. The first defines the core function, the second provides a concrete example. Perfectly 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?

Given the tool has three simple parameters (all documented) and no output schema, the description adequately covers usage. It could be enhanced by explicitly stating the return format (e.g., markdown string), but the example sufficiently hints at the output.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add meaning. The example in the description reinforces the audience parameter's effect, but does not provide new semantic information 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 description clearly states the tool generates user-facing release notes from merged commits since the last git tag, with a concrete example of rewriting developer language. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like veto_changelog or veto_commit_message.

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 implies usage after a git tag and for user-facing documentation, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context of 'since the last git tag' provides some guidance, but lacks exclusions or comparisons.

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