Auto-release blocker

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the closing 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description earns credit for real behavioral context beyond them: only one automatic draft may exist, and its failure blocks every subsequent automatic release until a human acts. It stops short of permissions or rate-limit details.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the blocking semantics, then the remedy, then the return shape. Dense but every clause contributes; the trailing 'Read-only' and repeated default note are minor redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly documents the return contract ({ blockingDraft: { id, version, createdAt, autoSource, stale } | null }), covers the optional parameter's default, and explains the blocking condition. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% and the single optional projectId is fully documented there, including the 'project_id' alias and the server-configured default. The description restates the default without adding syntax or format detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the automatic release draft that is blocking auto-release for one project') with the singleton scope made explicit. No sibling tool covers this, and the phrase 'if any' plus the nullable return makes the query nature unambiguous.

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 establishes the condition under which a result exists (a failed-publish automatic draft halting later releases) and routes the agent to the resolution paths ('mushi releases publish / delete, or the console Releases page'). It never states an explicit when-not or a named alternative read tool, so it falls just short of the top band.

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